Meta-analysis of longitudinal studies

K. Jack Ishak · Robert William Platt · Lawrence Joseph · James A. Hanley · J. Jaime

120 citations0/0 files storedClinical Trials

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal studies typically report estimates of the effect of a treatment or exposure at various times during the course of follow-up. Meta-analyses of these studies must account for correlations between effect estimates from the same study. PURPOSE: To describe and contrast alternative approaches to handling correlations inherent to longitudinal effect estimates in meta-analyses. METHODS: Linear mixed-effects models can account for correlations in a number of ways. We considered three alternatives: including study-specific random-effects, correlated time-specific random-effects or a general multivariate specification that also allows correlated within-study residuals. Data from a review of studies of the effect of deep-brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with Parkinson's disease are used to illustrate the application of these models. RESULTS: are contrasted with those from a naïve meta-analysis in which the correlations are ignored. Results The data included 46 studies that yielded 82 estimates of the effect of DBS measured at 3, 6, 12 months or later after implantation of the stimulator. Models that accounted for correlations, particularly the full multivariate specification, provided better fit (lower AIC) and yielded slightly more precise effect estimates. This was in part due to a relatively extreme observation from a study that provided similar estimates at other times, which in the naïve approach exerts greater influence since it is treated as an independent observation. LIMITATIONS: Since the true values of the parameters are not known, it is impossible to confirm that estimates from the multivariate approach are necessarily more accurate. CONCLUSION: Standard meta-analytic models can be readily extended to account for correlations between effects in longitudinal studies. These models may provide better fit and possibly more precise summary effect estimates.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 120 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials 1994Meta-Analytic Procedures for Social Research.2001Bullying Behaviors Among US Youth 2000Twenty Years' Research on Peer Victimization and Psychosocial Maladjustment: A Meta‐analytic Review of Cross‐sectional Studies 1999Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: a comparison of methods 2002Advanced methods in meta‐analysis: multivariate approach and meta‐regression 1999The power of friendship: Protection against an escalating cycle of peer victimization.1995Writing meta-analytic reviews.

Cited by

2018Retest effects in cognitive ability tests: A meta-analysis 2019Modelling time‐course relationships with multiple treatments: Model‐based network meta‐analysis for continuous summary outcomes 2011Mixed treatment comparison of repeated measurements of a continuous endpoint: an example using topical treatments for primary open‐angle glaucoma and ocular hypertension 2009Individual patient meta-analysis—rewards and challenges 2015Network meta‐analysis of longitudinal data using fractional polynomials

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.