Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wei Y
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3618374 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes.
Wei Yinghui Y Higgins Julian P T JP
Statistics in medicine 20121203 7
Multivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of effect estimates based on multiple outcomes from multiple studies, accounting for the potential correlations among them. However, standard methods for multivariate meta-analysis for multiple outcomes are restricted to problems where the within-study correlation is known or where individual participant data are available. This paper proposes an approach to approximating the within-study covariances based on information about likely correlat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In medical sciences, a disease condition is typically associated with multiple risk and protective factors. Although many studies report results of multiple factors, nearly all meta-analyses separately synthesize the association between each factor and the disease condition of interest. The collected studies usually report different subsets of factors, and the results from separate analyses on multiple factors may not be comparable because each analysis may use different subpopulation. This may impact on selecting most important factors to design a multifactor intervention program. This article proposes a new concept, multivariate meta-analysis of multiple factors (MVMA-MF), to synthesize all available factors simultaneously. By borrowing information across factors, MVMA-MF can improve statistical efficiency and reduce biases compared with separate analyses when factors were missing not at random. As within-study correlations between factors are commonly unavailable from published articles, we use a Bayesian hybrid model to perform MVMA-MF, which effectively accounts for both within- and between-study correlations. The performance of MVMA-MF and the conventional methods are compared using simulations and an application to a pterygium dataset consisting of 29 studies on 8 risk factors.
| S-EPMC5988916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMultivariate meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of multiple outcomes accounting for their correlation. This enables borrowing of strength (BoS) across outcomes, which may lead to greater efficiency and even different conclusions compared to separate univariate meta-analyses. However, multivariate meta-analysis is complex to apply, so guidance is needed to flag (in advance of analysis) when the approach is most useful.Study design and settingWe use 43 Cochrane intervention reviews to empirically investigate the characteristics of meta-analysis datasets that are associated with a larger BoS statistic (from 0 to 100%) when applying a bivariate meta-analysis of binary outcomes.ResultsFour characteristics were identified as strongly associated with BoS: the total number of studies, the number of studies with the outcome of interest, the percentage of studies missing the outcome of interest, and the largest absolute within-study correlation. Using these characteristics, we then develop a model for predicting BoS in a new dataset, which is shown to have good performance (an adjusted R2 of 50%). Applied examples are used to illustrate the use of the BoS prediction model.ConclusionsCochrane reviewers mainly use univariate meta-analysis methods, but the identified characteristics associated with BoS and our subsequent prediction model for BoS help to flag when a multivariate meta-analysis may also be beneficial in Cochrane reviews with multiple binary outcomes. Extension to non-Cochrane reviews and other outcome types is still required.
| S-EPMC9316363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multivariate random effects meta-analysis (MRMA) is an appropriate way for synthesizing data from studies reporting multiple correlated outcomes. In a Bayesian framework, it has great potential for integrating evidence from a variety of sources. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian model for MRMA of mixed outcomes, which extends previously developed bivariate models to the trivariate case and also allows for combination of multiple outcomes that are both continuous and binary. We have constructed informative prior distributions for the correlations by using external evidence. Prior distributions for the within-study correlations were constructed by employing external individual patent data and using a double bootstrap method to obtain the correlations between mixed outcomes. The between-study model of MRMA was parameterized in the form of a product of a series of univariate conditional normal distributions. This allowed us to place explicit prior distributions on the between-study correlations, which were constructed using external summary data. Traditionally, independent 'vague' prior distributions are placed on all parameters of the model. In contrast to this approach, we constructed prior distributions for the between-study model parameters in a way that takes into account the inter-relationship between them. This is a flexible method that can be extended to incorporate mixed outcomes other than continuous and binary and beyond the trivariate case. We have applied this model to a motivating example in rheumatoid arthritis with the aim of incorporating all available evidence in the synthesis and potentially reducing uncertainty around the estimate of interest.
| S-EPMC4015389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Motivated by our meta-analytic dataset involving survival rates after treatment for critical leg ischemia, we develop and apply a new multivariate model for the meta-analysis of study level survival data at multiple times. Our data set involves 50 studies that provide mortality rates at up to seven time points, which we model simultaneously, and we compare the results to those obtained from standard methodologies. Our method uses exact binomial within-study distributions and enforces the constraints that both the study specific and the overall mortality rates must not decrease over time. We directly model the probabilities of mortality at each time point, which are the quantities of primary clinical interest. We also present I(2) statistics that quantify the impact of the between-study heterogeneity, which is very considerable in our data set.
| S-EPMC4433770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It is well recognised that animal and plant pathogens form complex ecological communities of interacting organisms within their hosts, and there is growing interest in the health implications of such pathogen interactions. Although community ecology approaches have been used to identify pathogen interactions at the within-host scale, methodologies enabling robust identification of interactions from population-scale data such as that available from health authorities are lacking. To address this gap, we developed a statistical framework that jointly identifies interactions between multiple viruses from contemporaneous non-stationary infection time series. Our conceptual approach is derived from a Bayesian multivariate disease mapping framework. Importantly, our approach captures within- and between-year dependencies in infection risk while controlling for confounding factors such as seasonality, demographics and infection frequencies, allowing genuine pathogen interactions to be distinguished from simple correlations. We validated our framework using a broad range of synthetic data. We then applied it to diagnostic data available for five respiratory viruses co-circulating in a major urban population between 2005 and 2013: adenovirus, human coronavirus, human metapneumovirus, influenza B virus and respiratory syncytial virus. We found positive and negative covariances indicative of epidemiological interactions among specific virus pairs. This statistical framework enables a community ecology perspective to be applied to infectious disease epidemiology with important utility for public health planning and preparedness.
| S-EPMC6934324 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundBivariate random effects meta-analysis of diagnostic tests is becoming a well established approach when studies present one two-by-two table or one pair of sensitivity and specificity. When studies present multiple thresholds for test positivity, usually meta-analysts reduce the data to a two-by-two table or take one threshold value at a time and apply the well developed meta-analytic approaches. However, this approach does not fully exploit the data.MethodsIn this paper we generalize the bivariate random effects approach to the situation where test results are presented with k thresholds for test positivity, resulting in a 2 by (k+1) table per study. The model can be fitted with standard likelihood procedures in statistical packages such as SAS (Proc NLMIXED). We follow a multivariate random effects approach; i.e., we assume that each study estimates a study specific ROC curve that can be viewed as randomly sampled from the population of all ROC curves of such studies. In contrast to the bivariate case, where nothing can be said about the shape of study specific ROC curves without additional untestable assumptions, the multivariate model can be used to describe study specific ROC curves. The models are easily extended with study level covariates.ResultsThe method is illustrated using published meta-analysis data. The SAS NLMIXED syntax is given in the appendix.ConclusionWe conclude that the multivariate random effects meta-analysis approach is an appropriate and convenient framework to meta-analyse studies with multiple threshold without losing any information by dichotomizing the test results.
| S-EPMC2787531 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Small study effects occur when smaller studies show different, often larger, treatment effects than large ones, which may threaten the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The most well-known reasons for small study effects include publication bias, outcome reporting bias, and clinical heterogeneity. Methods to account for small study effects in univariate meta-analysis have been extensively studied. However, detecting small study effects in a multivariate meta-analysis setting remains an untouched research area. One of the complications is that different types of selection processes can be involved in the reporting of multivariate outcomes. For example, some studies may be completely unpublished while others may selectively report multiple outcomes. In this paper, we propose a score test as an overall test of small study effects in multivariate meta-analysis. Two detailed case studies are given to demonstrate the advantage of the proposed test over various naive applications of univariate tests in practice. Through simulation studies, the proposed test is found to retain nominal Type I error rates with considerable power in moderate sample size settings. Finally, we also evaluate the concordance between the proposed tests with the naive application of univariate tests by evaluating 44 systematic reviews with multiple outcomes from the Cochrane Database.
| S-EPMC7736122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Multivariate meta-analysis (MVMA) jointly synthesizes effects for multiple correlated outcomes. The MVMA model is potentially more difficult and time-consuming to apply than univariate models, so if its use makes little difference to parameter estimates, it could be argued that it is redundant. METHODS:We assessed the applicability and impact of MVMA in Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth (CPCB) systematic reviews. We applied MVMA to CPCB reviews published between 2011 and 2013 with two or more binary outcomes with at least three studies and compared findings with results of univariate meta-analyses. Univariate random effects meta-analysis models were fitted using restricted maximum likelihood estimation (REML). RESULTS:Eighty CPCB reviews were published. MVMA could not be applied in 70 of these reviews. MVMA was not feasible in three of the remaining 10 reviews because the appropriate models failed to converge. Estimates from MVMA agreed with those of univariate analyses in most of the other seven reviews. Statistical significance changed in two reviews: In one, this was due to a very small change in P value; in the other, the MVMA result for one outcome suggested that previous univariate results may be vulnerable to small-study effects and that the certainty of clinical conclusions needs consideration. CONCLUSIONS:MVMA methods can be applied only in a minority of reviews of interventions in pregnancy and childbirth and can be difficult to apply because of missing correlations or lack of convergence. Nevertheless, clinical and/or statistical conclusions from MVMA may occasionally differ from those from univariate analyses.
| S-EPMC6771837 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundCancer atlases often provide estimates of cancer incidence, mortality or survival across small areas of a region or country. A recent example of a cancer atlas is the Australian cancer atlas (ACA), that provides interactive maps to visualise spatially smoothed estimates of cancer incidence and survival for 20 different cancer types over 2148 small areas across Australia.MethodsThe present study proposes a multivariate Bayesian meta-analysis model, which can model multiple cancers jointly using summary measures without requiring access to the unit record data. This new approach is illustrated by modelling the publicly available spatially smoothed standardised incidence ratios for multiple cancers in the ACA divided into three groups: common, rare/less common and smoking-related. The multivariate Bayesian meta-analysis models are fitted to each group in order to explore any possible association between the cancers in three remoteness regions: major cities, regional and remote areas across Australia. The correlation between the pairs of cancers included in each multivariate model for a group was examined by computing the posterior correlation matrix for each cancer group in each region. The posterior correlation matrices in different remoteness regions were compared using Jennrich's test of equality of correlation matrices (Jennrich in J Am Stat Assoc. 1970;65(330):904-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1970.10481133 ).ResultsSubstantive correlation was observed among some cancer types. There was evidence that the magnitude of this correlation varied according to remoteness of a region. For example, there has been significant negative correlation between prostate and lung cancer in major cities, but zero correlation found in regional and remote areas for the same pair of cancer types. High risk areas for specific combinations of cancer types were identified and visualised from the proposed model.ConclusionsPublicly available spatially smoothed disease estimates can be used to explore additional research questions by modelling multiple cancer types jointly. These proposed multivariate meta-analysis models could be useful when unit record data are unavailable because of privacy and confidentiality requirements.
| S-EPMC7568363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In classical study designs, the aim is often to learn about the effects of a treatment or intervention on a single outcome; in many modern studies, however, data on multiple outcomes are collected and it is of interest to explore effects on multiple outcomes simultaneously. Such designs can be particularly useful in patient-centered research, where different outcomes might be more or less important to different patients. In this paper, we propose scaled effect measures (via potential outcomes) that translate effects on multiple outcomes to a common scale, using mean-variance and median-interquartile range based standardizations. We present efficient, nonparametric, doubly robust methods for estimating these scaled effects (and weighted average summary measures), and for testing the null hypothesis that treatment affects all outcomes equally. We also discuss methods for exploring how treatment effects depend on covariates (i.e., effect modification). In addition to describing efficiency theory for our estimands and the asymptotic behavior of our estimators, we illustrate the methods in a simulation study and a data analysis. Importantly, and in contrast to much of the literature concerning effects on multiple outcomes, our methods are nonparametric and can be used not only in randomized trials to yield increased efficiency, but also in observational studies with high-dimensional covariates to reduce confounding bias.
| S-EPMC5875585 | biostudies-literature