Cargando…
Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research
BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of preclinical data is used to evaluate the consistency of findings and to inform the design and conduct of future studies. Unlike clinical meta-analysis, preclinical data often involve many heterogeneous studies reporting outcomes from a small number of animals. Here, we r...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35047696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074 |
_version_ | 1784610632407973888 |
---|---|
author | Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi Faes, Christel van de Casteele, Tom McCann, Sarah K Macleod, Malcolm R |
author_facet | Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi Faes, Christel van de Casteele, Tom McCann, Sarah K Macleod, Malcolm R |
author_sort | Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of preclinical data is used to evaluate the consistency of findings and to inform the design and conduct of future studies. Unlike clinical meta-analysis, preclinical data often involve many heterogeneous studies reporting outcomes from a small number of animals. Here, we review the methodological challenges in preclinical meta-analysis in estimating and explaining heterogeneity in treatment effects. METHODS: Assuming aggregate-level data, we focus on two topics: (1) estimation of heterogeneity using commonly used methods in preclinical meta-analysis: method of moments (DerSimonian and Laird; DL), maximum likelihood (restricted maximum likelihood; REML) and Bayesian approach; (2) comparison of univariate versus multivariable meta-regression for adjusting estimated treatment effects for heterogeneity. Using data from a systematic review on the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animals with stroke, we compare these methods, and explore the impact of multiple covariates on the treatment effects. RESULTS: We observed that the three methods for estimating heterogeneity yielded similar estimates for the overall effect, but different estimates for between-study variability. The proportion of heterogeneity explained by a covariate is estimated larger using REML and the Bayesian method as compared with DL. Multivariable meta-regression explains more heterogeneity than univariate meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of careful selection of the estimation method and the use of multivariable meta-regression to explain heterogeneity. There was no difference between REML and the Bayesian method and both methods are recommended over DL. Multiple meta-regression is worthwhile to explain heterogeneity by more than one variable, reducing more variability than any univariate models and increasing the explained proportion of heterogeneity. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8647574 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86475742022-01-18 Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi Faes, Christel van de Casteele, Tom McCann, Sarah K Macleod, Malcolm R BMJ Open Sci Original Research BACKGROUND: Meta-analysis of preclinical data is used to evaluate the consistency of findings and to inform the design and conduct of future studies. Unlike clinical meta-analysis, preclinical data often involve many heterogeneous studies reporting outcomes from a small number of animals. Here, we review the methodological challenges in preclinical meta-analysis in estimating and explaining heterogeneity in treatment effects. METHODS: Assuming aggregate-level data, we focus on two topics: (1) estimation of heterogeneity using commonly used methods in preclinical meta-analysis: method of moments (DerSimonian and Laird; DL), maximum likelihood (restricted maximum likelihood; REML) and Bayesian approach; (2) comparison of univariate versus multivariable meta-regression for adjusting estimated treatment effects for heterogeneity. Using data from a systematic review on the efficacy of interleukin-1 receptor antagonist in animals with stroke, we compare these methods, and explore the impact of multiple covariates on the treatment effects. RESULTS: We observed that the three methods for estimating heterogeneity yielded similar estimates for the overall effect, but different estimates for between-study variability. The proportion of heterogeneity explained by a covariate is estimated larger using REML and the Bayesian method as compared with DL. Multivariable meta-regression explains more heterogeneity than univariate meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the importance of careful selection of the estimation method and the use of multivariable meta-regression to explain heterogeneity. There was no difference between REML and the Bayesian method and both methods are recommended over DL. Multiple meta-regression is worthwhile to explain heterogeneity by more than one variable, reducing more variability than any univariate models and increasing the explained proportion of heterogeneity. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-02-25 /pmc/articles/PMC8647574/ /pubmed/35047696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi Faes, Christel van de Casteele, Tom McCann, Sarah K Macleod, Malcolm R Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title | Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title_full | Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title_fullStr | Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title_short | Comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
title_sort | comparison of commonly used methods in random effects meta-analysis: application to preclinical data in drug discovery research |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8647574/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35047696 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjos-2020-100074 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT tanriverayderezgi comparisonofcommonlyusedmethodsinrandomeffectsmetaanalysisapplicationtopreclinicaldataindrugdiscoveryresearch AT faeschristel comparisonofcommonlyusedmethodsinrandomeffectsmetaanalysisapplicationtopreclinicaldataindrugdiscoveryresearch AT vandecasteeletom comparisonofcommonlyusedmethodsinrandomeffectsmetaanalysisapplicationtopreclinicaldataindrugdiscoveryresearch AT mccannsarahk comparisonofcommonlyusedmethodsinrandomeffectsmetaanalysisapplicationtopreclinicaldataindrugdiscoveryresearch AT macleodmalcolmr comparisonofcommonlyusedmethodsinrandomeffectsmetaanalysisapplicationtopreclinicaldataindrugdiscoveryresearch |