Cargando…

Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis

Network meta‐analysis can synthesize evidence from studies comparing multiple treatments for the same disease. Sometimes the treatments of a network are complex interventions, comprising several independent components in different combinations. A component network meta‐analysis (CNMA) can be used to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Efthimiou, Orestis, Seo, Michael, Karyotaki, Eirini, Cuijpers, Pim, Furukawa, Toshi A., Schwarzer, Guido, Rücker, Gerta, Mavridis, Dimitris
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35261053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9372
_version_ 1784754356741996544
author Efthimiou, Orestis
Seo, Michael
Karyotaki, Eirini
Cuijpers, Pim
Furukawa, Toshi A.
Schwarzer, Guido
Rücker, Gerta
Mavridis, Dimitris
author_facet Efthimiou, Orestis
Seo, Michael
Karyotaki, Eirini
Cuijpers, Pim
Furukawa, Toshi A.
Schwarzer, Guido
Rücker, Gerta
Mavridis, Dimitris
author_sort Efthimiou, Orestis
collection PubMed
description Network meta‐analysis can synthesize evidence from studies comparing multiple treatments for the same disease. Sometimes the treatments of a network are complex interventions, comprising several independent components in different combinations. A component network meta‐analysis (CNMA) can be used to analyze such data and can in principle disentangle the individual effect of each component. However, components may interact with each other, either synergistically or antagonistically. Deciding which interactions, if any, to include in a CNMA model may be difficult, especially for large networks with many components. In this article, we present two Bayesian CNMA models that can be used to identify prominent interactions between components. Our models utilize Bayesian variable selection methods, namely the stochastic search variable selection and the Bayesian LASSO, and can benefit from the inclusion of prior information about important interactions. Moreover, we extend these models to combine data from studies providing aggregate information and studies providing individual patient data (IPD). We illustrate our models in practice using three real datasets, from studies in panic disorder, depression, and multiple myeloma. Finally, we describe methods for developing web‐applications that can utilize results from an IPD‐CNMA, to allow for personalized estimates of relative treatment effects given a patient's characteristics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9314605
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93146052022-07-30 Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis Efthimiou, Orestis Seo, Michael Karyotaki, Eirini Cuijpers, Pim Furukawa, Toshi A. Schwarzer, Guido Rücker, Gerta Mavridis, Dimitris Stat Med Research Articles Network meta‐analysis can synthesize evidence from studies comparing multiple treatments for the same disease. Sometimes the treatments of a network are complex interventions, comprising several independent components in different combinations. A component network meta‐analysis (CNMA) can be used to analyze such data and can in principle disentangle the individual effect of each component. However, components may interact with each other, either synergistically or antagonistically. Deciding which interactions, if any, to include in a CNMA model may be difficult, especially for large networks with many components. In this article, we present two Bayesian CNMA models that can be used to identify prominent interactions between components. Our models utilize Bayesian variable selection methods, namely the stochastic search variable selection and the Bayesian LASSO, and can benefit from the inclusion of prior information about important interactions. Moreover, we extend these models to combine data from studies providing aggregate information and studies providing individual patient data (IPD). We illustrate our models in practice using three real datasets, from studies in panic disorder, depression, and multiple myeloma. Finally, we describe methods for developing web‐applications that can utilize results from an IPD‐CNMA, to allow for personalized estimates of relative treatment effects given a patient's characteristics. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-03-08 2022-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC9314605/ /pubmed/35261053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9372 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Articles
Efthimiou, Orestis
Seo, Michael
Karyotaki, Eirini
Cuijpers, Pim
Furukawa, Toshi A.
Schwarzer, Guido
Rücker, Gerta
Mavridis, Dimitris
Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title_full Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title_fullStr Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title_full_unstemmed Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title_short Bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
title_sort bayesian models for aggregate and individual patient data component network meta‐analysis
topic Research Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9314605/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35261053
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/sim.9372
work_keys_str_mv AT efthimiouorestis bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT seomichael bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT karyotakieirini bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT cuijperspim bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT furukawatoshia bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT schwarzerguido bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT ruckergerta bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis
AT mavridisdimitris bayesianmodelsforaggregateandindividualpatientdatacomponentnetworkmetaanalysis