Identifying homogenous subgroups for individual patient meta-analysis based on Rough Set Theory

Failure to detect and manage heterogeneity between clinical trials included in meta-analysis may lead to misinterpretation of summary effect estimates. This may ultimately compromise the validity of the results of the meta-analysis. Typically, when heterogeneity between trials is detected, researchers use sensitivity or subgroup analysis to manage it. However, both methods fail to explain why heterogeneity existed in the first place. Here we propose a novel methodology that relies on Rough Set Theory (RST) to detect, explain, and manage the sources of heterogeneity applicable to meta-analysis performed on individual patient data (IPD). The method exploits the RST relations of discernibility and indiscernibility to create homogeneous groups of patients. We applied our methodology on a dataset of 1,111 patients enrolled in 9 randomized controlled trials studying the effect of two transplantation procedures in the management of hematologic malignancies. Our method was able to create three subgroups of patients with remarkably low statistical heterogeneity values (16.8%, 0% and 0% respectively). The proposed methodology has the potential to automatize and standardize the process of detecting and managing heterogeneity in IPD meta-analysis. Future work involves investigating the applications of the proposed methodology in analyzing treatment effects in patients belonging to different risk groups, which will ultimately assist in personalized healthcare decision making.

[1]  Larry V. Hedges,et al.  Identifying and Quantifying Heterogeneity , 2009, Introduction to Meta‐Analysis.

[2]  D. Vanderpooten Similarity Relation as a Basis for Rough Approximations , 1995 .

[3]  K. Schulz,et al.  Meta-analyses of interventional trials done in populations with different risks , 1995, The Lancet.

[4]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses , 2003, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[5]  Meera Viswanathan,et al.  Comparative Effectiveness Review Methods: Clinical Heterogeneity , 2010 .

[6]  S. Sharp,et al.  Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods. , 1999 .

[7]  H. Lee,et al.  Allogeneic Peripheral Blood Stem-Cell Compared With Bone Marrow Transplantation in the Management of Hematologic Malignancies: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Nine Randomized Trials , 2005 .

[8]  W. G. Cochran Some Methods for Strengthening the Common χ 2 Tests , 1954 .

[9]  Stephen W Lagakos,et al.  Statistics in medicine--reporting of subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  S G Thompson,et al.  Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigated , 1994, BMJ.

[11]  Harold I Feldman,et al.  Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Interpretation of tests of heterogeneity and bias in meta-analysis. , 2008, Journal of evaluation in clinical practice.

[13]  S. Thompson,et al.  Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Fuzzy Similarity Relation as a Basis for Rough Approximations , 1998, Rough Sets and Current Trends in Computing.

[15]  Janusz Zalewski,et al.  Rough sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data , 1996 .

[16]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[17]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. , 2002, JAMA.

[18]  Staal A. Vinterbo,et al.  Minimal approximate hitting sets and rule templates , 2000, Int. J. Approx. Reason..