Dataset Information

Simultaneous multioutcome synthesis and mapping of treatment effects to a common scale.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

A new method is presented for both synthesizing treatment effects on multiple outcomes subject to measurement error and estimating coherent mapping coefficients between all outcomes. It can be applied to sets of trials reporting different combinations of patient- or clinician-reported outcomes, including both disease-specific measures and generic health-related quality-of-life measures. It is underpinned by a structural equation model that includes measurement error and latent common treatment effect factor. Treatment effects can be expressed on any of the test instruments that have been used.

Methods

This is illustrated in a synthesis of eight placebo-controlled trials of TNF-α inhibitors in ankylosing spondylitis, each reporting treatment effects on between two and five of a total six test instruments.

Results

The method has advantages over other methods for synthesis of multiple outcome data, including standardization and multivariate normal synthesis. Unlike standardization, it allows synthesis of treatment effect information from test instruments sensitive to different underlying constructs. It represents a special case of previously proposed multivariate normal models for evidence synthesis, but unlike the former, it also estimates mappings. Combining synthesis and mapping as a single operation makes more efficient use of available data than do current mapping methods and generates treatment effects that are consistent with the mappings. A limitation, however, is that it can only generate mappings to and from those instruments on which some trial data exist.

Conclusions

The method should be assessed in a wide range of data sets on different clinical conditions, before it can be used routinely in health technology assessment.

SUBMITTER: Lu G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3991420 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

Project description:Background: Potentially curative epilepsy surgery can be offered if a single, discrete epileptogenic zone (EZ) can be identified. For individuals in whom there is no clear concordance between clinical localization, scalp EEG, and imaging data, intracranial EEG (icEEG) may be needed to confirm a predefined hypothesis regarding irritative zone (IZ), seizure onset zone (SOZ), and EZ prior to surgery. However, icEEG has limited spatial sampling and may fail to reveal the full extent of epileptogenic network if predefined hypothesis is not correct. Simultaneous icEEG-fMRI has been safely acquired in humans and allows exploration of neuronal activity at the whole-brain level related to interictal epileptiform discharges (IED) captured intracranially. Methods: We report icEEG-fMRI in eight patients with refractory focal epilepsy who had resective surgery and good postsurgical outcome. Surgical resection volume in seizure-free patients post-surgically reflects confirmed identification of the EZ. IEDs on icEEG were classified according to their topographic distribution and localization (Focal, Regional, Widespread, and Non-contiguous). We also divided IEDs by their location within the surgical resection volume [primary IZ (IZ1) IED] or outside [secondary IZ (IZ2) IED]. The distribution of fMRI blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) changes associated with individual IED classes were assessed over the whole brain using a general linear model. The concordance of resulting BOLD map was evaluated by comparing localization of BOLD clusters with surgical resection volume. Additionally, we compared the concordance of BOLD maps and presence of BOLD clusters in remote brain areas: precuneus, cuneus, cingulate, medial frontal, and thalamus for different IED classes. Results: A total of 38 different topographic IED classes were identified across the 8 patients: Focal (22) and non-focal (16, Regional = 9, Widespread = 2, Non-contiguous = 5). Twenty-nine IEDs originated from IZ1 and 9 from IZ2. All IED classes were associated with BOLD changes. BOLD maps were concordant with the surgical resection volume for 27/38 (71%) IED classes, showing statistical global maximum BOLD cluster or another cluster in the surgical resection volume. The concordance of BOLD maps with surgical resection volume was greater (p < 0.05) for non-focal (87.5%, 14/16) as compared to Focal (59%, 13/22) IED classes. Additionally, BOLD clusters in remote cortical and deep brain areas were present in 84% (32/38) of BOLD maps, more commonly (15/16; 93%) for non-focal IED-related BOLD maps. Conclusions: Simultaneous icEEG-fMRI can reveal BOLD changes at the whole-brain level for a wide range of IEDs on icEEG. BOLD clusters within surgical resection volume and remote brain areas were more commonly seen for non-focal IED classes, suggesting that a wider hemodynamic network is at play.