Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial
Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial
BACKGROUND: Data on survival endpoints are usually summarised using either hazard ratio, cumulative number of events, or median survival statistics. Network meta-analysis, an extension of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, is typically based on a single statistic. In this case, studies which do not report the chosen statistic are excluded from the analysis which may introduce bias.
METHODS: In this paper we present a tutorial illustrating how network meta-analyses of survival endpoints can combine count and hazard ratio statistics in a single analysis on the hazard ratio scale. We also describe methods for accounting for the correlations in relative treatment effects (such as hazard ratios) that arise in trials with more than two arms. Combination of count and hazard ratio data in a single analysis is achieved by estimating the cumulative hazard for each trial arm reporting count data. Correlation in relative treatment effects in multi-arm trials is preserved by converting the relative treatment effect estimates (the hazard ratios) to arm-specific outcomes (hazards).
RESULTS: A worked example of an analysis of mortality data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is used to illustrate the methods. The data set and WinBUGS code for fixed and random effects models are provided.
CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating all data presentations in a single analysis, we avoid the potential selection bias associated with conducting an analysis for a single statistic and the potential difficulties of interpretation, misleading results and loss of available treatment comparisons associated with conducting separate analyses for different summary statistics.
Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Proportional Hazards Models, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/mortality, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data, Statistics as Topic/methods
1-9
Woods, Beth S
13ca1259-13b5-45c6-b837-b59e95dd1454
Hawkins, Neil
1aa8112d-606d-4176-b306-9c22158c556d
Scott, David A
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20
10 June 2010
Woods, Beth S
13ca1259-13b5-45c6-b837-b59e95dd1454
Hawkins, Neil
1aa8112d-606d-4176-b306-9c22158c556d
Scott, David A
19b5fd34-9974-4ae4-8be0-27a693639e20
Woods, Beth S, Hawkins, Neil and Scott, David A
(2010)
Network meta-analysis on the log-hazard scale, combining count and hazard ratio statistics accounting for multi-arm trials: a tutorial.
BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10, , [54].
(doi:10.1186/1471-2288-10-54).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Data on survival endpoints are usually summarised using either hazard ratio, cumulative number of events, or median survival statistics. Network meta-analysis, an extension of traditional pairwise meta-analysis, is typically based on a single statistic. In this case, studies which do not report the chosen statistic are excluded from the analysis which may introduce bias.
METHODS: In this paper we present a tutorial illustrating how network meta-analyses of survival endpoints can combine count and hazard ratio statistics in a single analysis on the hazard ratio scale. We also describe methods for accounting for the correlations in relative treatment effects (such as hazard ratios) that arise in trials with more than two arms. Combination of count and hazard ratio data in a single analysis is achieved by estimating the cumulative hazard for each trial arm reporting count data. Correlation in relative treatment effects in multi-arm trials is preserved by converting the relative treatment effect estimates (the hazard ratios) to arm-specific outcomes (hazards).
RESULTS: A worked example of an analysis of mortality data in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is used to illustrate the methods. The data set and WinBUGS code for fixed and random effects models are provided.
CONCLUSIONS: By incorporating all data presentations in a single analysis, we avoid the potential selection bias associated with conducting an analysis for a single statistic and the potential difficulties of interpretation, misleading results and loss of available treatment comparisons associated with conducting separate analyses for different summary statistics.
This record has no associated files available for download.
More information
Published date: 10 June 2010
Keywords:
Humans, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Proportional Hazards Models, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive/mortality, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/statistics & numerical data, Statistics as Topic/methods
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 441406
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/441406
ISSN: 1471-2288
PURE UUID: 79225488-0666-4846-b4cd-28fc55759397
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 11 Jun 2020 16:39
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 04:02
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Beth S Woods
Author:
Neil Hawkins
Author:
David A Scott
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics