Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Network meta-analysis expands the scope of a conventional pairwise meta-analysis to simultaneously compare multiple treatments, synthesizing both direct and indirect information and thus strengthening inference. Since most of trials only compare two treatments, a typical data set in a network meta-analysis managed as a trial-by-treatment matrix is extremely sparse, like an incomplete block structure with significant missing data. Zhang et al. proposed an arm-based method accounting for correlations among different treatments within the same trial and assuming that absent arms are missing at random. However, in randomized controlled trials, nonignorable missingness or missingness not at random may occur due to deliberate choices of treatments at the design stage. In addition, those undertaking a network meta-analysis may selectively choose treatments to include in the analysis, which may also lead to missingness not at random. In this paper, we extend our previous work to incorporate missingness not at random using selection models. The proposed method is then applied to two network meta-analyses and evaluated through extensive simulation studies. We also provide comprehensive comparisons of a commonly used contrast-based method and the arm-based method via simulations in a technical appendix under missing completely at random and missing at random.

Keywords

Network meta-analysis Bayesian hierarchical models nonignorable missingness selection models

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Puhan

Vedula

et al.

Network meta-analysis – highly attractive but more methodological research is needed. BMC Med 2011; 9: 79–79.

Higgins

JPT

Whitehead

. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2733–2749.

Jansen

Fleurence

Devine

et al.

Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: part 1. Value Health 2011; 14: 417–428.

Cipriani

Furukawa

Salanti

et al.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 12 new-generation antidepressants: a multiple-treatments meta-analysis. Lancet 2009; 373: 746–758.

Ades

. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105–3124.

Ades

. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. JASA 2006; 101: 447–459.

Ades

Sutton

et al.

Meta-analysis of mixed treatment comparisons at multiple follow-up times. Stat Med 2007; 26: 3681–3699.

Ades

. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009; 10: 792–805.

Zhang

Carlin

Neaton

et al.

Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: reporting the proper summaries. Clin Trials 2014; 11: 246–262.

10.

Little

RJA

Rubin

. Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd ed. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

11.

Pigott

. A review of methods for missing data. Educ Res Eval 2001; 7: 353–383.

12.

Hong H, Chu H, Zhang J, et al. A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons. Methods Research Reports. Report no. 13-EHC004-EF. Rockville, USA: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

13.

Shuster

Guo

Skyler

. Meta-analysis of safety for low event-rate binomial trials. Res Synth Meth 2012; 3: 30–50.

14.

Chalmers

Celano

Sacks

et al.

Bias in treatment assignment in controlled clinical trials. New Engl J Med 1983; 309: 1358–1361.

15.

Mills

Kanters

Thorlund

et al.

The effects of excluding treatments from network meta-analyses: survey. BMJ 2013; 347: f5195–f5195.

16.

Coleman CI, Phung OJ, Cappelleri JC, et al. Use of mixed treatment comparisons in systematic reviews (prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No 290-2007-10067-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC119-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012.

17.

Heckman

. The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator for such models. Ann Econ Soc Measure 1976; 5: 475–492.

18.

Mason

Richardson

Best

. Two-pronged strategy for using DIC to compare selection models with non-ignorable missing responses. Bayesian Anal 2012; 7: 109–146.

19.

Gelman

. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 515–533.

20.

Gustafson

. The utility of prior information and stratification for parameter estimation with two screening tests but no gold standard. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1203–1217.

21.

Gustafson

Hossain

MacNab

. Conservative prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Can J Stat 2006; 34: 377–390.

22.

Natarajan

McCulloch

. Gibbs sampling with diffuse proper priors: a valid approach to data-driven inference? J Comput Graph Stat 1998; 7: 267–277.

23.

Wakefield

. Ecological inference for 2 × 2 tables (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser A (Stat Soc) 2004; 167: 385–445.

24.

Jackson

Best

Richardson

. Improving ecological inference using individual-level data. Stat Med 2006; 25: 2136–2159.

25.

Spiegelhalter

Best

Carlin

et al.

Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). J R Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Methodol) 2002; 64: 583–639.

26.

Celeux

Forbes

Robert

et al.

Deviance information criteria for missing data models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 651–673.

27.

Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Smoking cessation. Clinical Practice Guideline No. 18 (AHCPR publication no. 96-0692), Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

28.

Hasselblad

. Meta-analysis of multitreatment studies. Med Decis Making 1998; 18: 37–43.

29.

Picard

Tramer

. Prevention of pain on injection with propofol: a quantitative systematic review. Anesth Anal 2000; 90: 963–969.

30.

Veroniki

Vasiliadis

Higgins

et al.

Evaluation of inconsistency in networks of interventions. Int J Epidemiol 2013; 42: 332–345.

31.

Barnard

McCulloch

Meng

. Modeling covariance matrices in terms of standard deviations and correlations, with application to shrinkage. Stat Sin 2000; 10: 1281–1312.

32.

Sutton

Higgins

JPT

. Recent developments in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2008; 27: 625–650.

33.

Salanti

. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Meth 2012; 3: 80–97.

34.

Zhang J, Fu H and Carlin BP. Detecting outlying trials in network meta-analysis. Stat Med 2015; 34: 2695–2707.

35.

Van Houwelingen

Zwinderman

Stijnen

. A bivariate approach to meta-analysis. Stat Med 1993; 12: 2273–2284.

36.

Shuster

Jones

Salmon

. Fixed vs random effects meta-analysis in rare event studies: The rosiglitazone link with myocardial infarction and cardiac death. Stat Med 2007; 26: 4375–4385.

37.

Senn

. Hans van Houwelingen and the art of summing up. Biometr J 2010; 52: 85–94.

38.

Begg

Pilote

. A model for incorporating historical controls into a meta-analysis. Biometrics 1991; 47: 899–906.

39.

Viele

Berry

Neuenschwander

et al.

Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm Stat 2014; 13: 41–54.

40.

Michiels

Molenberghs

Bijnens

et al.

Selection models and pattern-mixture models to analyse longitudinal quality of life data subject to drop-out. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1023–1041.

41.

Zhao H, Hodges JS, Ma H, et al. Hierarchical Bayesian approaches for detecting inconsistency in network meta-analysis. Research Report 2014–006, Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, 2015.

42.

Borenstein

Hedges

Higgins

JPT

et al.

Introduction to meta-analysis, West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2011.