An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis

BackgroundA number of strategies have been proposed to handle missing binary outcome data (MOD) in systematic reviews. However, none of these have been evaluated empirically in a series of published systematic reviews.MethodsUsing published systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA) from a wide range of health-related fields, we evaluated comparatively the most frequently described Bayesian modelling strategies for MOD in terms of log odds ratio (log OR), between-trial variance, inconsistency factor (i.e. difference between direct and indirect estimates for a comparison), surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) and rankings. We extended the Bayesian random-effects NMA model to incorporate the informative missingness odds ratio (IMOR) parameter, and applied the node-splitting approach to investigate inconsistency locally. We considered both pattern-mixture and selection models, different structures for prior distribution of log IMOR, and different scenarios for MOD. To illustrate level of agreement between different strategies and scenarios, we used Bland-Altman plots.ResultsAddressing MOD using extreme scenarios and ignoring the uncertainty about the scenarios led to systematically different and more precise log ORs compared to modelling MOD under the missing at random (MAR) assumption. Hierarchical structure of log IMORs led to lower between-trial variance, especially in the case of substantial MOD. Assuming common-within-network or trial-specific log IMORs yielded similar posterior results for all NMA estimates, whereas intervention-specific structure systematically inflated uncertainty around log ORs and SUCRAs. Pattern-mixture model agreed with selection model, particularly under the trial-specific structure; however, selection model systematically reduced precision around log IMORs. Overall, different strategies and scenarios mostly had good agreement in the case of low MOD.ConclusionsAddressing MOD using extreme scenarios and/or ignoring the uncertainty about the scenarios may negatively affect NMA estimates. Modelling MOD via the IMOR parameter can ensure bias-adjusted estimates and offer valuable insights into missingness mechanisms. The researcher should seek an expert opinion in order to decide on the structure of log IMOR that best aligns to the condition and interventions studied and to define a proper prior distribution for log IMOR. Our findings also apply to pairwise meta-analyses.

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

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

[3]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[4]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Special Topics in Statistics , 2008 .

[5]  L. Spineli Missing binary data extraction challenges from Cochrane reviews in mental health and Campbell reviews with implications for empirical research , 2017, Research synthesis methods.

[6]  Wasifa Zarin,et al.  Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[7]  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.

[8]  S. Satya‐Murti Evidence-based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM , 1997 .

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

[10]  Xin Sun,et al.  Addressing continuous data for participants excluded from trial analysis: a guide for systematic reviewers. , 2013, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  David R. Jones,et al.  How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Dan Jackson,et al.  Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

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

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

[15]  Matthias Briel,et al.  Addressing Dichotomous Data for Participants Excluded from Trial Analysis: A Guide for Systematic Reviewers , 2013, PloS one.

[16]  Nicky J Welton,et al.  Automated generation of node‐splitting models for assessment of inconsistency in network meta‐analysis , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[17]  C. Wilke Streamlined Plot Theme and Plot Annotations for 'ggplot2' , 2015 .

[18]  S Dias,et al.  Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  Jacob Cohen A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales , 1960 .

[20]  Johannes B Reitsma,et al.  GetReal in network meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology , 2016, Research synthesis methods.

[21]  Ian R White,et al.  Imputation methods for missing outcome data in meta-analysis of clinical trials , 2008, Clinical trials.

[22]  Thomas Agoritsas,et al.  Handling trial participants with missing outcome data when conducting a meta-analysis: a systematic survey of proposed approaches , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[23]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Accounting for uncertainty due to ‘last observation carried forward’ outcome imputation in a meta‐analysis model , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

[25]  Christopher H. Schmid,et al.  Characteristics of Networks of Interventions: A Description of a Database of 186 Published Networks , 2014, PloS one.

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

[27]  Aaron N. Winn,et al.  An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review , 2015, PloS one.

[28]  I. White,et al.  Meta-analysis with Missing Data , 2009 .

[29]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[30]  Loukia M Spineli Modeling missing binary outcome data while preserving transitivity assumption yielded more credible network meta-analysis results. , 2019, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  Alex J. Sutton,et al.  Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2 , 2013, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[32]  H. Schünemann,et al.  A systematic survey shows that reporting and handling of missing outcome data in networks of interventions is poor , 2018, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[33]  L. Magder,et al.  Simple approaches to assess the possible impact of missing outcome information on estimates of risk ratios, odds ratios, and risk differences. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[34]  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.

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

[36]  Andrew W Lee,et al.  Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[37]  D. Altman,et al.  Measuring agreement in method comparison studies , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

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

[39]  S D Walter,et al.  Choice of effect measure for epidemiological data. , 2000, Journal of clinical epidemiology.