Individual participant data meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes: A comparison of approaches for specifying and estimating one‐stage models

Amardeep Legha · Richard D Riley · Joie Ensor · Kym I E Snell · Tim Peter Morris · Danielle L. Burke

32 citations0/0 files storedStatistics in Medicine

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

One-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models should account for within-trial clustering, but it is currently debated how to do this. For continuous outcomes modeled using a linear regression framework, two competing approaches are a stratified intercept or a random intercept. The stratified approach involves estimating a separate intercept term for each trial, whereas the random intercept approach assumes that trial intercepts are drawn from a normal distribution. Here, through an extensive simulation study for continuous outcomes, we evaluate the impact of using the stratified and random intercept approaches on statistical properties of the summary treatment effect estimate. Further aims are to compare (i) competing estimation options for the one-stage models, including maximum likelihood and restricted maximum likelihood, and (ii) competing options for deriving confidence intervals (CI) for the summary treatment effect, including the standard normal-based 95% CI, and more conservative approaches of Kenward-Roger and Satterthwaite, which inflate CIs to account for uncertainty in variance estimates. The findings reveal that, for an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a 1:1 treatment:control allocation ratio and heterogeneity in the treatment effect, (i) bias and coverage of the summary treatment effect estimate are very similar when using stratified or random intercept models with restricted maximum likelihood, and thus either approach could be taken in practice, (ii) CIs are generally best derived using either a Kenward-Roger or Satterthwaite correction, although occasionally overly conservative, and (iii) if maximum likelihood is required, a random intercept performs better than a stratified intercept model. An illustrative example is provided.

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 — 32 citations exist upstream.

References

1986Meta-analysis in clinical trials 2011Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses 2010Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting 1993Meta-analysis of the literature or of individual patient data: is there a difference?2001A refined method for the meta‐analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary outcome 2005Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice 2016Meta-analysis using individual participant data: one-stage and two-stage approaches, and why they may differ 2014Random-Effects Meta-analysis of Inconsistent Effects: A Time for Change

Cited by

2021Toward Cumulative Cognitive Science: A Comparison of Meta-Analysis, Mega-Analysis, and Hybrid Approaches 2020Meta‐analysis of continuous outcomes: Using pseudo IPD created from aggregate data to adjust for baseline imbalance and assess treatment‐by‐baseline modification 2020Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data of Single-Case Experimental Designs: One-Stage versus Two-Stage Methods 2018One‐stage random effects meta‐analysis using linear mixed models for aggregate continuous outcome data

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.