Dataset Information

Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data.

ABSTRACT: Multiple imputation is a strategy for the analysis of incomplete data such that the impact of the missingness on the power and bias of estimates is mitigated. When data from multiple studies are collated, we can propose both within-study and multilevel imputation models to impute missing data on covariates. It is not clear how to choose between imputation models or how to combine imputation and inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis methods. This is especially important as often different studies measure data on different variables, meaning that we may need to impute data on a variable which is systematically missing in a particular study. In this paper, we consider a simulation analysis of sporadically missing data in a single covariate with a linear analysis model and discuss how the results would be applicable to the case of systematically missing data. We find in this context that ensuring the congeniality of the imputation and analysis models is important to give correct standard errors and confidence intervals. For example, if the analysis model allows between-study heterogeneity of a parameter, then we should incorporate this heterogeneity into the imputation model to maintain the congeniality of the two models. In an inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis, we should impute missing data and apply Rubin's rules at the study level prior to meta-analysis, rather than meta-analyzing each of the multiple imputations and then combining the meta-analysis estimates using Rubin's rules. We illustrate the results using data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration.

SUBMITTER: Burgess S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3963448 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data.

Burgess Stephen S White Ian R IR Resche-Rigon Matthieu M Wood Angela M AM

Statistics in medicine 20130524 26

Multiple imputation is a strategy for the analysis of incomplete data such that the impact of the missingness on the power and bias of estimates is mitigated. When data from multiple studies are collated, we can propose both within-study and multilevel imputation models to impute missing data on covariates. It is not clear how to choose between imputation models or how to combine imputation and inverse-variance weighted meta-analysis methods. This is especially important as often different studi ...[more]

PMID: 23703895

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIncreasingly in network meta-analysis (NMA), there is a need to incorporate non-randomised evidence to estimate relative treatment effects, and in particular in cases with limited randomised evidence, sometimes resulting in disconnected networks of treatments. When combining different sources of data, complex NMA methods are required to address issues associated with participant selection bias, incorporating single-arm trials (SATs), and synthesising a mixture of individual participant data (IPD) and aggregate data (AD). We develop NMA methods which synthesise data from SATs and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), using a mixture of IPD and AD, for a dichotomous outcome.MethodsWe propose methods under both contrast-based (CB) and arm-based (AB) parametrisations, and extend the methods to allow for both within- and across-trial adjustments for covariate effects. To illustrate the methods, we use an applied example investigating the effectiveness of biologic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We applied the methods to a dataset obtained from a literature review consisting of 14 RCTs and an artificial dataset consisting of IPD from two SATs and AD from 12 RCTs, where the artificial dataset was created by removing the control arms from the only two trials assessing tocilizumab in the original dataset.ResultsWithout adjustment for covariates, the CB method with independent baseline response parameters (CBunadjInd) underestimated the effectiveness of tocilizumab when applied to the artificial dataset compared to the original dataset, albeit with significant overlap in posterior distributions for treatment effect parameters. The CB method with exchangeable baseline response parameters produced effectiveness estimates in agreement with CBunadjInd, when the predicted baseline response estimates were similar to the observed baseline response. After adjustment for RA duration, there was a reduction in across-trial heterogeneity in baseline response but little change in treatment effect estimates.ConclusionsOur findings suggest incorporating SATs in NMA may be useful in some situations where a treatment is disconnected from a network of comparator treatments, due to a lack of comparative evidence, to estimate relative treatment effects. The reliability of effect estimates based on data from SATs may depend on adjustment for covariate effects, although further research is required to understand this in more detail.

Project description:BackgroundFour studies previously indicated that the effect of malaria infection during pregnancy on the risk of low birthweight (LBW; <2,500 g) may depend upon maternal nutritional status. We investigated this dependence further using a large, diverse study population.Methods and findingsWe evaluated the interaction between maternal malaria infection and maternal anthropometric status on the risk of LBW using pooled data from 14,633 pregnancies from 13 studies (6 cohort studies and 7 randomized controlled trials) conducted in Africa and the Western Pacific from 1996-2015. Studies were identified by the Maternal Malaria and Malnutrition (M3) initiative using a convenience sampling approach and were eligible for pooling given adequate ethical approval and availability of essential variables. Study-specific adjusted effect estimates were calculated using inverse probability of treatment-weighted linear and log-binomial regression models and pooled using a random-effects model. The adjusted risk of delivering a baby with LBW was 8.8% among women with malaria infection at antenatal enrollment compared to 7.7% among uninfected women (adjusted risk ratio [aRR] 1.14 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91, 1.42]; N = 13,613), 10.5% among women with malaria infection at delivery compared to 7.9% among uninfected women (aRR 1.32 [95% CI: 1.08, 1.62]; N = 11,826), and 15.3% among women with low mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC <23 cm) at enrollment compared to 9.5% among women with MUAC ? 23 cm (aRR 1.60 [95% CI: 1.36, 1.87]; N = 9,008). The risk of delivering a baby with LBW was 17.8% among women with both malaria infection and low MUAC at enrollment compared to 8.4% among uninfected women with MUAC ? 23 cm (joint aRR 2.13 [95% CI: 1.21, 3.73]; N = 8,152). There was no evidence of synergism (i.e., excess risk due to interaction) between malaria infection and MUAC on the multiplicative (p = 0.5) or additive scale (p = 0.9). Results were similar using body mass index (BMI) as an anthropometric indicator of nutritional status. Meta-regression results indicated that there may be multiplicative interaction between malaria infection at enrollment and low MUAC within studies conducted in Africa; however, this finding was not consistent on the additive scale, when accounting for multiple comparisons, or when using other definitions of malaria and malnutrition. The major limitations of the study included availability of only 2 cross-sectional measurements of malaria and the limited availability of ultrasound-based pregnancy dating to assess impacts on preterm birth and fetal growth in all studies.ConclusionsPregnant women with malnutrition and malaria infection are at increased risk of LBW compared to women with only 1 risk factor or none, but malaria and malnutrition do not act synergistically.

Project description:BackgroundIn non-randomized studies (NRSs) where a continuous outcome variable (e.g., depressive symptoms) is assessed at baseline and follow-up, it is common to observe imbalance of the baseline values between the treatment/exposure group and control group. This may bias the study and consequently a meta-analysis (MA) estimate. These estimates may differ across statistical methods used to deal with this issue. Analysis of individual participant data (IPD) allows standardization of methods across studies. We aimed to identify methods used in published IPD-MAs of NRSs for continuous outcomes, and to compare different methods to account for baseline values of outcome variables in IPD-MA of NRSs using two empirical examples from the Thyroid Studies Collaboration (TSC).MethodsFor the first aim we systematically searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from inception to February 2021 to identify published IPD-MAs of NRSs that adjusted for baseline outcome measures in the analysis of continuous outcomes. For the second aim, we applied analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), change score, propensity score and the naïve approach (ignores the baseline outcome data) in IPD-MA from NRSs on the association between subclinical hyperthyroidism and depressive symptoms and renal function. We estimated the study and meta-analytic mean difference (MD) and relative standard error (SE). We used both fixed- and random-effects MA.ResultsTen of 18 (56%) of the included studies used the change score method, seven (39%) studies used ANCOVA and one the propensity score (5%). The study estimates were similar across the methods in studies in which groups were balanced at baseline with regard to outcome variables but differed in studies with baseline imbalance. In our empirical examples, ANCOVA and change score showed study results on the same direction, not the propensity score. In our applications, ANCOVA provided more precise estimates, both at study and meta-analytical level, in comparison to other methods. Heterogeneity was higher when change score was used as outcome, moderate for ANCOVA and null with the propensity score.ConclusionANCOVA provided the most precise estimates at both study and meta-analytic level and thus seems preferable in the meta-analysis of IPD from non-randomized studies. For the studies that were well-balanced between groups, change score, and ANCOVA performed similarly.

Dataset Information

Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data.

Publications

Combining multiple imputation and meta-analysis with individual participant data.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets