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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tanriver-Ayder, Ezgi, Faes, Christel, van de Casteele, Tom, McCann, Sarah K, Macleod, Malcolm R
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