metaCOVID: A web‐application for living meta‐analyses of COVID‐19 trials

Outputs from living evidence syntheses projects have been used widely during the pandemic by guideline developers to form evidence‐based recommendations. However, the needs of different stakeholders cannot be accommodated by solely providing pre‐defined non amendable numerical summaries. Stakeholders also need to understand the data and perform their own exploratory analyses. This requires resources, time, statistical expertise, software knowledge as well as relevant clinical expertise to avoid spurious conclusions. To assist them, we created the metaCOVID application which, based on automation processes, facilitates the fast exploration of the data and the conduct of sub‐analyses tailored to end‐users needs. metaCOVID has been created in R and is freely available as an R‐Shiny application. Based on the COVID‐NMA platform (https://covid-nma.com/) the application conducts living meta‐analyses of randomized controlled trials related to COVID‐19 treatments and vaccines for several outcomes. Several options are available for subgroup and sensitivity analyses. The results are presented in downloadable forest plots. We illustrate metaCOVID through three examples involving well‐known treatments and vaccines for COVID‐19. The application is freely available from https://covid-nma.com/metacovid/.

[1]  I. Jara,et al.  COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies , 2022, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology.

[2]  I. Boutron,et al.  Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19. , 2022, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[3]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Network meta‐analysis of rare events using penalized likelihood regression , 2021, Statistics in medicine.

[4]  K. Rabe,et al.  Key summary of German national treatment guidance for hospitalized COVID-19 patients , 2021, Infection.

[5]  I. Boutron,et al.  Interleukin-6 blocking agents for treating COVID-19: a living systematic review. , 2021, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[6]  W. Lim,et al.  Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 , 2021 .

[7]  I. Boutron,et al.  Interventions for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19: a living mapping of research and living network meta-analysis , 2020, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

[8]  I. Boutron,et al.  Interventions for the treatment of COVID-19: a living network meta-analysis , 2020 .

[9]  I. Boutron,et al.  The COVID-NMA Project: Building an Evidence Ecosystem for the COVID-19 Pandemic , 2020, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis , 2020, BMJ.

[11]  J. Jakobsen,et al.  Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project) , 2020, Systematic Reviews.

[12]  Gerta Rücker,et al.  How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial , 2019, Evidence-Based Mental Health.

[13]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Analysing data and undertaking meta‐analyses , 2019, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

[14]  Natalie S Blencowe,et al.  RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2019, BMJ.

[15]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Dealing with missing outcome data in meta‐analysis , 2019, Research synthesis methods.

[16]  Orestis Efthimiou,et al.  Practical guide to the meta-analysis of rare events , 2018, Evidence Based Journals.

[17]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies , 2018, Research synthesis methods.

[18]  D. Mavridis,et al.  A comparison of 20 heterogeneity variance estimators in statistical synthesis of results from studies: a simulation study , 2017, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Hannah R Rothstein,et al.  Basics of meta‐analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogeneity , 2017, Research synthesis methods.

[20]  Ralf Bender,et al.  Methods to estimate the between‐study variance and its uncertainty in meta‐analysis† , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[21]  James F Burke,et al.  Three simple rules to ensure reasonably credible subgroup analyses , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Addressing missing outcome data in meta-analysis , 2014, Evidence-Based Mental Health.

[23]  George F Borm,et al.  The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[24]  Michael Borenstein,et al.  Meta-Analysis and Subgroups , 2013, Prevention Science.

[25]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package , 2010 .

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

[27]  Wolfgang Viechtbauer,et al.  Bias and Efficiency of Meta-Analytic Variance Estimators in the Random-Effects Model , 2005 .

[28]  Kurex Sidik,et al.  Simple heterogeneity variance estimation for meta‐analysis , 2005 .

[29]  Guido Knapp,et al.  Improved tests for a random effects meta‐regression with a single covariate , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

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

[31]  D. Firth.  Bias reduction of maximum likelihood estimates , 1993 .

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

[33]  R. Peto,et al.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials. , 1985, Progress in cardiovascular diseases.

[34]  C. Morris.  Parametric Empirical Bayes Inference: Theory and Applications , 1983 .

[35]  John Mandel,et al.  Consensus Values and Weighting Factors. , 1982, Journal of research of the National Bureau of Standards.

[36]  W. Haenszel,et al.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. , 1959, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.