A chain of evidence with mixed comparisons: models for multi‐parameter synthesis and consistency of evidence

Multi-parameter evidence synthesis is a generalization of meta-analysis in which several parameters are estimated jointly. Here this approach is applied to a common form of data structure in which mixed pairwise comparisons are made between treatments in a 'chain of evidence' structure. The data set investigated here, which first appeared in the confidence profile method literature, features three types of data relating to thrombolytic treatment following acute myocardial infarction. There is information on reperfusion (coronary patency) following treatment, information on survival in reperfused and non-reperfused patients (conditional survival), and independent information on the effect of treatment on survival without specifying reperfusion state (overall survival). The objective of this study is to explore models for combining these three types of evidence within a single model, and some of the evidence consistency issues that arise. Bayesian Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used to fit two models. The first, proposed in the confidence profile literature, assumes there are no differences between studies in baseline effects (equal study effects). The second model assumes fixed treatment effects but allows for study differences in baseline reperfusion and conditional survival rates by assuming random study effects. The equal study effects model fits the data poorly, and cross-validation shows that the overall survival evidence is not consistent with the reperfusion and conditional survival evidence under this model. The evidence appears to be consistent within the more loosely structured random study effects model, but results are sensitive to prior assumptions about the between-study variance. The inconsistency between the three evidence types relates to overall survival, rather than to the effect of treatment on survival. Multi-parameter evidence synthesis, with suitable checks for evidence consistency, can be used to help determine whether chains of evidence 'add up' epidemiologically within an overall model, and to construct parameter distributions for an entire model simultaneously, consistent with all the available data.

[1]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[2]  Ross D. Shachter,et al.  A Bayesian Method for Synthesizing Evidence: The Confidence Profile Method , 1990, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[3]  R J Carroll,et al.  On meta-analytic assessment of surrogate outcomes. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[4]  David R. Jones,et al.  Systematic reviews of trials and other studies. , 1998, Health technology assessment.

[5]  K Abrams,et al.  Meta-analysis and the synthesis of evidence. , 1995, IMA journal of mathematics applied in medicine and biology.

[6]  R. Califf,et al.  A pooled analysis of coronary arterial patency and left ventricular function after intravenous thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. , 1994, The American journal of cardiology.

[7]  David M. Eddy,et al.  Meta-analysis by the confidence profile method , 1992 .

[8]  M J Daniels,et al.  Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  K. Beatt,et al.  Significance of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction scoring system in assessing infarct-related artery reperfusion and mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction. , 1997, American heart journal.

[10]  Ross D. Shachter,et al.  An Introduction to a Bayesian Method for Meta-analysis , 1990, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[11]  David M. Eddy,et al.  The Confidence Profile Method: A Bayesian Method for Assessing Health Technologies , 1989, Oper. Res..

[12]  E. Chelimsky,et al.  Cross-design Synthesis: A New Form of Meta-analysis for Combining Results from Randomized Clinical Trials and Medical-practice Databases , 1993, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[13]  Colin B. Begg 1. Cross design synthesis: A new strategy for medical effectiveness research. United States General Accounting Office, (GA0/PEMD‐92‐18), Washington, Dc, 1992. no. of pages: 121. Price: Free/(Available from US General Accounting Office, P.O. Box 6015, Gaithersburg, Md 20877, U.S.A.) , 1992 .

[14]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian random effects meta‐analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  David R. Jones,et al.  Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  A E Ades,et al.  Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation of a Multiparameter Decision Model: Consistency of Evidence and the Accurate Assessment of Uncertainty , 2002, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[17]  S. Thompson,et al.  Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  G. Molenberghs,et al.  The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. , 2000, Biostatistics.

[19]  A Whitehead,et al.  Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. , 1996, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Colin B. Begg,et al.  Random Effects Models for Combining Results from Controlled and Uncontrolled Studies in a Meta-Analysis , 1994 .

[21]  Theo Stijnen,et al.  Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[22]  Arthur P. Dempster,et al.  The direct use of likelihood for significance testing , 1997, Stat. Comput..

[23]  Daniel T. Larose,et al.  Grouped random effects models for Bayesian meta-analysis. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  S G Thompson,et al.  Investigating underlying risk as a source of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  John Geweke,et al.  Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments , 1991 .

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

[27]  V. Hasselblad,et al.  Meta-analysis of Multitreatment Studies , 1998, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[28]  D J Spiegelhalter,et al.  Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. , 1995, Statistics in medicine.

[29]  Giovanni Parmigiani,et al.  Meta-Analysis of Migraine Headache Treatments: Combining Information from Heterogeneous Designs , 1999 .

[30]  Bradley P. Carlin,et al.  Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit , 2002 .

[31]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis , 2001 .

[32]  H C Van Houwelingen,et al.  A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. , 1993, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  F Mosteller,et al.  Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[34]  C B Begg,et al.  A model for incorporating historical controls into a meta-analysis. , 1991, Biometrics.