Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
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.
Afiliación
  • Tanriver-Ayder E; Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, Edinburgh Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
  • Faes C; Translational Medicine and Early Development Statistics, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Antwerpen, Belgium.
  • van de Casteele T; Data Science Institute (DSI), Interuniversity Institute for Biostatistics and Statistical Bioinformatics (I-BioStat), Hasselt University, Hasselt, Limburg, Belgium.
  • McCann SK; Translational Medicine and Early Development Statistics, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Beerse, Antwerpen, Belgium.
  • Macleod MR; QUEST Center for Transforming Biomedical Research, Berlin Institute of Health (BIH), Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
BMJ Open Sci ; 5(1): e100074, 2021.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35047696
ABSTRACT

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.
Palabras clave

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Sci Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido

Texto completo: 1 Base de datos: MEDLINE Tipo de estudio: Clinical_trials / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Idioma: En Revista: BMJ Open Sci Año: 2021 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Reino Unido