Search

Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) projects obtain, check, harmonise and synthesise raw data from multiple studies. When undertaking the meta-analysis, researchers must decide between a two-stage or a one-stage approach. In a two-stage approach, the IPD are first analysed separately within each study to obtain aggregate data (e.g., treatment effect estimates and standard errors); then, in the second stage, these aggregate data are combined in a standard meta-analysis model (e.g., common-effect or random-effects). In a one-stage approach, the IPD from all studies are analysed in a single step using an appropriate model that accounts for clustering of participants within studies and, potentially, between-study heterogeneity (e.g., a general or generalised linear mixed model). The best approach to take is debated in the literature, and so here we provide clearer guidance for a broad audience. Both approaches are important tools for IPDMA researchers and neither are a panacea. If most studies in the IPDMA are small (few participants or events), a one-stage approach is recommended due to using a more exact likelihood. However, in other situations, researchers can choose either approach, carefully following best practice. Some previous claims recommending to always use a one-stage approach are misleading, and the two-stage approach will often suffice for most researchers. When differences do arise between the two approaches, often it is caused by researchers using different modelling assumptions or estimation methods, rather than using one or two stages per se.

Quantitative bias analysis (QBA) permits assessment of the expected impact of various imperfections of the available data on the results and conclusions of a particular real-world study. This article extends QBA methodology to multivariable time-to-event analyses with right-censored endpoints, possibly including time-varying exposures or covariates. The proposed approach employs data-driven simulations, which preserve important features of the data at hand while offering flexibility in controlling the parameters and assumptions that may affect the results. First, the steps required to perform data-driven simulations are described, and then two examples of real-world time-to-event analyses illustrate their implementation and the insights they may offer. The first example focuses on the omission of an important time-invariant predictor of the outcome in a prognostic study of cancer mortality, and permits separating the expected impact of confounding bias from noncollapsibility. The second example assesses how imprecise timing of an interval-censored event—ascertained only at sparse times of clinic visits—affects its estimated association with a time-varying drug exposure. The simulation results also provide a basis for comparing the performance of two alternative strategies for imputing the unknown event times in this setting. The R scripts that permit the reproduction of our examples are provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate frequentist performance of a method is desirable in confirmatory clinical trials, but is not sufficient on its own to justify the use of a missing data method. Reference‐based conditional mean imputation, with variance estimation justified solely by its frequentist performance, has the surprising and undesirable property that the estimated variance becomes smaller the greater the number of missing observations; as explained under jump‐to‐reference it effectively forces the true treatment effect to be exactly zero for patients with missing data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Value-added measures of educational progress have been used by education researchers and policy-makers to assess the performance of teachers and schools, contributing to performance-related pay and position in school league tables. They are designed to control for all underlying differences between pupils and should therefore provide unbiased measures of school and teacher influence on pupil progress, however, their effectiveness has been questioned. We exploit genetic data from a UK birth cohort to investigate how successfully value-added measures control for genetic differences between pupils. We use raw value-added, contextual value-added (which additionally controls for background characteristics) and teacher-reported value-added measures built from data at ages 11, 14 and 16. Sample sizes for analyses range from 4,600 to 6,518. Our findings demonstrate that genetic differences between pupils explain little variation in raw value-added measures but explain up to 20% of the variation in contextual value-added measures (95% CI = 6.06% to 35.71%). Value-added measures built from teacher-rated ability have a greater proportion of variance explained by genetic differences between pupils, with 36.3% of their cross-sectional variation being statistically accounted for by genetics (95% CI = 22.8% to 49.8%). By contrast, a far greater proportion of variance is explained by genetic differences for raw test scores at each age of at least 47.3% (95% CI: 35.9 to 58.7). These findings provide evidence that value-added measures of educational progress can be influenced by genetic differences between pupils, and therefore may provide a biased measure of school and teacher performance. We include a glossary of genetic terms for educational researchers interested in the use of genetic data in educational research.

Membership of overlapping or intersecting sets may be recorded in a bundle of (0, 1) indicator variables. Annotated Euler or Venn diagrams may be used to show graphically the frequencies of subsets so defined, but beyond just a few sets such diagrams can be hard to draw and use effectively. This column presents two new commands for graphical alternatives: upsetplot and vennbar. Each command produces a bar chart by default, but there is scope to recast to different graphical forms. The differences between the new commands reflect the divide in Stata between twoway commands and other graph commands. They also provide some flexibility in graph design to match tastes and circumstances. The discussion includes many historical details and references. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To obtain valid inference following stratified randomisation, treatment effects should be estimated with adjustment for stratification variables. Stratification sometimes requires categorisation of a continuous prognostic variable (eg, age), which raises the question: should adjustment be based on randomisation categories or underlying continuous values? In practice, adjustment for randomisation categories is more common. We reviewed trials published in general medical journals and found none of the 32 trials that stratified randomisation based on a continuous variable adjusted for continuous values in the primary analysis. Using data simulation, this article evaluates the performance of different adjustment strategies for continuous and binary outcomes where the covariate‐outcome relationship (via the link function) was either linear or non‐linear. Given the utility of covariate adjustment for addressing missing data, we also considered settings with complete or missing outcome data. Analysis methods included linear or logistic regression with no adjustment for the stratification variable, adjustment for randomisation categories, or adjustment for continuous values assuming a linear covariate‐outcome relationship or allowing for non‐linearity using fractional polynomials or restricted cubic splines. Unadjusted analysis performed poorly throughout. Adjustment approaches that misspecified the underlying covariate‐outcome relationship were less powerful and, alarmingly, biased in settings where the stratification variable predicted missing outcome data. Adjustment for randomisation categories tends to involve the highest degree of misspecification, and so should be avoided in practice. To guard against misspecification, we recommend use of flexible approaches such as fractional polynomials and restricted cubic splines when adjusting for continuous stratification variables in randomised trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simulation studies are powerful tools in epidemiology and biostatistics, but they can be hard to conduct successfully. Sometimes unexpected results are obtained. We offer advice on how to check a simulation study when this occurs, and how to design and conduct the study to give results that are easier to check. Simulation studies should be designed to include some settings in which answers are already known. They should be coded in stages, with data-generating mechanisms checked before simulated data are analysed. Results should be explored carefully, with scatterplots of standard error estimates against point estimates surprisingly powerful tools. Failed estimation and outlying estimates should be identified and dealt with by changing data-generating mechanisms or coding realistic hybrid analysis procedures. Finally, we give a series of ideas that have been useful to us in the past for checking unexpected results. Following our advice may help to prevent errors and to improve the quality of published simulation studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For simulation studies that evaluate methods of handling missing data, we argue that generating partially observed data by fixing the complete data and repeatedly simulating the missingness indicators is a superficially attractive idea but only rarely appropriate to use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although new biostatistical methods are published at a very high rate, many of these developments are not trustworthy enough to be adopted by the scientific community. We propose a framework to think about how a piece of methodological work contributes to the evidence base for a method. Similar to the well‐known phases of clinical research in drug development, we propose to define four phases of methodological research. These four phases cover (I) proposing a new methodological idea while providing, for example, logical reasoning or proofs, (II) providing empirical evidence, first in a narrow target setting, then (III) in an extended range of settings and for various outcomes, accompanied by appropriate application examples, and (IV) investigations that establish a method as sufficiently well‐understood to know when it is preferred over others and when it is not; that is, its pitfalls. We suggest basic definitions of the four phases to provoke thought and discussion rather than devising an unambiguous classification of studies into phases. Too many methodological developments finish before phase III/IV, but we give two examples with references. Our concept rebalances the emphasis to studies in phases III and IV, that is, carefully planned method comparison studies and studies that explore the empirical properties of existing methods in a wider range of problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) in trials aims to enhance research by improving its relevance and transparency. Planning for statistical analysis begins at the design stage of a trial within the protocol and is refined and detailed in a Statistical Analysis Plan (SAP). While PPI is common in design and protocol development it is less common within SAPs. This study aimed to reach consensus on the most important and relevant statistical analysis items within an SAP to involve patients and the public. Methods: We developed a UK-based, two-round Delphi survey through an iterative consultation with public partners, statisticians, and trialists. The consultation process started with 55 items from international guidance for statistical analysis plans. We aimed to recruit at least 20 participants per key stakeholder group for inclusion in the final analysis of the Delphi survey. Participants were asked to vote on each item using a Likert scale from 1 to 9, where a rating of 1 to 3 was labelled as having 'limited importance'; 4 to 6 as 'important but not critical' and 7 to 9 as 'critical' to involve patients and the public. Results from the second round determined consensus on critical items for PPI. Results: The consultation exercise led to the inclusion of 15 statistical items in the Delphi survey. We recruited 179 participants, of whom 72% (129: 36 statisticians, 29 patients or public partners, 25 clinical researchers or methodologists, 27 trial managers, and 12 PPI coordinators) completed both rounds. Participants were on average 48 years old, 60% were female, 84% were White, 64% were based in England and 84% had at least five years' experience in trials. Four items reached consensus regarding critical importance for patient and public involvement: presentation of results to trial participants; summary and presentation of harms; interpretation and presentation of findings in an academic setting; factors impacting how well a treatment works. No consensus was reached for the remaining 11 items. In general, the results were consistent across stakeholder groups. Discussion: We identified four critical items to involve patients and the public in statistical analysis plans. The remaining 11 items did not reach consensus and need to be considered in a case-by-case basis with most responders considering patient and public involvement important (but not critical). Our research provides a platform to enable focused future efforts to improve patient and public involvement in trials and enhance the relevance of statistical analyses to patients and the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The marginality principle guides analysts to avoid omitting lower‐order terms from models in which higher‐order terms are included as covariates. Lower‐order terms are viewed as "marginal" to higher‐order terms. We consider how this principle applies to three cases: regression models that may include the ratio of two measured variables; polynomial transformations of a measured variable; and factorial arrangements of defined interventions. For each case, we show that which terms or transformations are considered to be lower‐order, and therefore marginal, depends on the scale of measurement, which is frequently arbitrary. Understanding the implications of this point leads to an intuitive understanding of the curse of dimensionality. We conclude that the marginality principle may be useful to analysts in some specific cases but caution against invoking it as a context‐free recipe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures. Methods: We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption. Results: Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered. Conclusion: When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In network meta‐analysis, studies evaluating multiple treatment comparisons are modeled simultaneously, and estimation is informed by a combination of direct and indirect evidence. Network meta‐analysis relies on an assumption of consistency, meaning that direct and indirect evidence should agree for each treatment comparison. Here we propose new local and global tests for inconsistency and demonstrate their application to three example networks. Because inconsistency is a property of a loop of treatments in the network meta‐analysis, we locate the local test in a loop. We define a model with one inconsistency parameter that can be interpreted as loop inconsistency. The model builds on the existing ideas of node‐splitting and side‐splitting in network meta‐analysis. To provide a global test for inconsistency, we extend the model across multiple independent loops with one degree of freedom per loop. We develop a new algorithm for identifying independent loops within a network meta‐analysis. Our proposed models handle treatments symmetrically, locate inconsistency in loops rather than in nodes or treatment comparisons, and are invariant to choice of reference treatment, making the results less dependent on model parameterization. For testing global inconsistency in network meta‐analysis, our global model uses fewer degrees of freedom than the existing design‐by‐treatment interaction approach and has the potential to increase power. To illustrate our methods, we fit the models to three network meta‐analyses varying in size and complexity. Local and global tests for inconsistency are performed and we demonstrate that the global model is invariant to choice of independent loops. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many trials use stratified randomisation, where participants are randomised within strata defined by one or more baseline covariates. While it is important to adjust for stratification variables in the analysis, the appropriate method of adjustment is unclear when stratification variables are affected by misclassification and hence some participants are randomised in the incorrect stratum. We conducted a simulation study to compare methods of adjusting for stratification variables affected by misclassification in the analysis of continuous outcomes when all or only some stratification errors are discovered, and when the treatment effect or treatment‐by‐covariate interaction effect is of interest. The data were analysed using linear regression with no adjustment, adjustment for the strata used to perform the randomisation (randomisation strata), adjustment for the strata if all errors are corrected (true strata), and adjustment for the strata after some errors are discovered and corrected (updated strata). The unadjusted model performed poorly in all settings. Adjusting for the true strata was optimal, while the relative performance of adjusting for the randomisation strata or the updated strata varied depending on the setting. As the true strata are unlikely to be known with certainty in practice, we recommend using the updated strata for adjustment and performing subgroup analyses, provided the discovery of errors is unlikely to depend on treatment group, as expected in blinded trials. Greater transparency is needed in the reporting of stratification errors and how they were addressed in the analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]