Inference for correlated effect sizes using multiple univariate meta-analyses

Network meta-analysis made simple: a composite likelihood approach

Network meta-analysis, also known as mixed treatments comparison meta-analysis or multiple treatments meta-analysis, extends conventional pairwise meta-analysis by simultaneously synthesizing multiple interventions in a single integrated analysis. Despite the growing popularity of network metaanalysis within comparative effectiveness research, it comes with potential challenges. For example, within-study correlations among treatment comparisons are rarely reported in the published literature. Yet, these correlations are pivotal for valid statistical inference. As demonstrated in earlier studies, ignoring these correlations can inflate mean squared errors of the resulting point estimates and lead to inaccurate standard error estimates. This paper introduces a composite likelihood-based approach that ensures accurate statistical inference without requiring knowledge of the within-study correlations. The proposed method is computationally robust and efficient, with substantially reduced computational time compared to the state-of-the-science methods implemented in R packages. The proposed method was evaluated through extensive simulations and applied to two important applications including a network meta-analysis comparing interventions for primary open-angle glaucoma, and another comparing treatments for chronic prostatitis and chronic pelvic pain syndrome.

Extending Hui-Walter framework to correlated outcomes with application to diagnosis tests of an eye disease among premature infants

Diagnostic accuracy, a measure of diagnostic tests for correctly identifying patients with or without a target disease, plays an important role in evidence-based medicine. Diagnostic accuracy of a new test ideally should be evaluated by comparing to a gold standard; however, in many medical applications it may be invasive, costly, or even unethical to obtain a gold standard for particular diseases. When the accuracy of a new candidate test under evaluation is assessed by comparison to an imperfect reference test, bias is expected to occur and result in either overestimates or underestimates of its true accuracy. In addition, diagnostic test studies often involve repeated measurements of the same patient, such as the paired eyes or multiple teeth, and generally lead to correlated and clustered data. Using the conventional statistical methods to estimate diagnostic accuracy can be biased by ignoring the within-cluster correlations. Despite numerous statistical approaches have been proposed to tackle this problem, the methodology to deal with correlated and clustered data in the absence of a gold standard is limited. In this article, we propose a method based on the composite likelihood function to derive simple and intuitive closed-form solutions for estimates of diagnostic accuracy, in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Through simulation studies, we illustrate the relative advantages of the proposed method over the existing methods that simply treat an imperfect reference test as a gold standard in correlated and clustered data. Compared with the existing methods, the proposed method can reduce not only substantial bias, but also the computational burden. Moreover, to demonstrate the utility of this approach, we apply the proposed method to the study of National-Eye-Institute-funded Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating of Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP), for estimating accuracies of both the ophthalmologist examination and the image evaluation.

Testing small study effects in multivariate meta-analysis

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.

Generating the evidence for risk reduction: a contribution to the future of food-based dietary guidelines

A major advantage of analyses on the food group level is that the results are better interpretable compared with nutrients or complex dietary patterns. Such results are also easier to transfer into recommendations on primary prevention of non-communicable diseases. As a consequence, food-based dietary guidelines (FBDG) are now the preferred approach to guide the population regarding their dietary habits. However, such guidelines should be based on a high grade of evidence as requested in many other areas of public health practice. The most straightforward approach to generate evidence is meta-analysing published data based on a careful definition of the research question. Explicit definitions of study questions should include participants, interventions/exposure, comparisons, outcomes and study design. Such type of meta-analyses should not only focus on categorical comparisons, but also on linear and non-linear dose-response associations. Risk of bias of the individual studies of the meta-analysis should be assessed, rated and the overall credibility of the results scored (e.g. using NutriGrade). Tools such as a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews or ROBIS are available to evaluate the methodological quality/risk of bias of meta-analyses. To further evaluate the complete picture of evidence, we propose conducting network meta-analyses (NMA) of intervention trials, mostly on intermediate disease markers. To rank food groups according to their impact, disability-adjusted life years can be used for the various clinical outcomes and the overall results can be compared across the food groups. For future FBDG, we recommend to implement evidence from pairwise and NMA and to quantify the health impact of diet-disease relationships.

Inference for correlated effect sizes using multiple univariate meta-analyses

Multivariate meta-analysis, which involves jointly analyzing multiple and correlated outcomes from separate studies, has received a great deal of attention. One reason to prefer the multivariate approach is its ability to account for the dependence between multiple estimates from the same study. However, nearly all the existing methods for analyzing multivariate meta-analytic data require the knowledge of the within-study correlations, which are usually unavailable in practice. We propose a simple non-iterative method that can be used for the analysis of multivariate meta-analysis datasets, that has no convergence problems, and does not require the use of within-study correlations. Our approach uses standard univariate methods for the marginal effects but also provides valid joint inference for multiple parameters. The proposed method can directly handle missing outcomes under missing completely at random assumption. Simulation studies show that the proposed method provides unbiased estimates, well-estimated standard errors, and confidence intervals with good coverage probability. Furthermore, the proposed method is found to maintain high relative efficiency compared with conventional multivariate meta-analyses where the within-study correlations are known. We illustrate the proposed method through two real meta-analyses where functions of the estimated effects are of interest.