Modeling missing binary outcome data while preserving transitivity assumption yielded more credible network meta-analysis results.

OBJECTIVES The objectives of this study were to elaborate on the conceptual evaluation of transitivity assumption in the context of binary missing participant outcome data (MOD) in network meta-analysis (NMA) and to emphasize on the importance of statistical modeling as a mean to address MOD. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We designate the notion of transitivity assumption in the context of binary MOD and indicate scenarios that compromise transitivity in complex networks. We propose a modification of these scenarios that preserves transitivity assumption. Using a published NMA, we indicate the implications of excluding or imputing, rather than modeling MOD, on NMA findings. RESULTS Arm-specific scenarios for MOD, as commonly applied in conventional meta-analysis, compromise the validity of transitivity assumption in complex networks. The motivating example reveals that imputation of those scenarios yields estimates in the opposite direction for the basic parameters with narrower credible intervals and inflates between-trial variance. Contrariwise, modeling MOD after modification of the scenarios yields robust estimates for the basic parameters but wider credible intervals and reduces between-trial variance. CONCLUSION Application of arm-specific scenarios for binary MOD requires modification in complex networks to ensure valid transitivity assumption. Analysts should model, rather than exclude or impute MOD, to provide bias-adjusted results.

[1]  Erica L. Baker,et al.  Pharmacologic Treatments for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Mixed‐Treatment Comparison Meta‐analysis , 2009, Pharmacotherapy.

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

[3]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Indirect and mixed‐treatment comparison, network, or multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool , 2012, Research synthesis methods.

[4]  Ian R White,et al.  Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 1: Two‐stage methods , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Reporting, handling and assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant data in systematic reviews: a methodological survey , 2022 .

[6]  K. Jones Evidence Based Medicine—How to Practice and Teach EBM , 1996 .

[7]  Carrol Gamble,et al.  Uncertainty method improved on best-worst case analysis in a binary meta-analysis. , 2005, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[8]  Dimitris Mavridis,et al.  Allowing for uncertainty due to missing continuous outcome data in pairwise and network meta‐analysis , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  D. Caldwell An overview of conducting systematic reviews with network meta-analysis , 2014, Systematic Reviews.

[10]  Tianjing Li,et al.  Network meta-analysis-highly attractive but more methodological research is needed , 2011, BMC medicine.

[11]  N. Pandis,et al.  Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta‐analyses , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[12]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2: A Generalized Linear Modeling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. , 2013 .

[13]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Allowing for uncertainty due to missing data in meta‐analysis—Part 2: Hierarchical models , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  I. White,et al.  Including all individuals is not enough: Lessons for intention-to-treat analysis , 2012, Clinical trials.

[15]  A. Sutton,et al.  Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysis☆ , 2013, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[16]  A. E. Ades,et al.  A Bayesian framework to account for uncertainty due to missing binary outcome data in pairwise meta‐analysis , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. , 2018, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  J. Geddes,et al.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis , 2009, The Lancet.

[19]  Ying Yuan,et al.  Meta‐Analysis of Studies with Missing Data , 2009, Biometrics.

[20]  Deborah M Caldwell,et al.  Additional considerations are required when preparing a protocol for a systematic review with multiple interventions. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  Andrea Cipriani,et al.  Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antimanic drugs in acute mania: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis , 2011, The Lancet.

[22]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  GRADE guidelines 17: assessing the risk of bias associated with missing participant outcome data in a body of evidence. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[23]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials , 2011 .

[24]  Julian Pt Higgins,et al.  Evaluating the impact of imputations for missing participant outcome data in a network meta-analysis , 2013, Clinical trials.

[25]  L. Spineli,et al.  Comparison of exclusion, imputation and modelling of missing binary outcome data in frequentist network meta-analysis , 2020, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[26]  Loukia M Spineli,et al.  An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis , 2019, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[27]  Sharon E Straus,et al.  Evidence-Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach It , 2010 .