Network meta-analysis combining survival and count outcome data: A simple frequentist approach
Noma, H.; Maruo, K.
Show abstract
Network meta-analysis for survival outcome data often involves several studies only reported dichotomized outcomes (i.e., the numbers of events and sample sizes of individual arms). To avoid the reporting biases via eliminating these studies in the syntesis analyses, Woods et al. (2010; BMC Med Res Methodol 10:54) proposed a Bayesian approach to combine the survival and dichotomized outcome data using hierarchical models. However, the Bayesian methods require complicated computations involving the Markov Chain Monte Carlo and the technical aspects are generally difficult to handle by non-statisticians (e.g., the convergence diagnostics). Besides, frequentist approaches have been alternative standard methods for statistical analyses of network meta-analysis. The methodology has been well established, and several effective software packages have been developed (e.g., netmeta package in R). In this article, we propose a simple method to synthesis the survival and dichotomized outcome data within the frequentist framework using the contrast-based models. We also provide a R package survNMA (https://doi.org/10.32614/CRAN.package.survNMA) to calculate hazard ratio statistics from the dichotomized outcome data that can be directly used for implementing general analyses of network meta-analysis using netmeta package of R.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 94%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 93%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- External control arm analysis: an evaluation of propensity score approaches, G-computation, and doubly debiased machine learning 92%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 92%
- Quantitative bias analysis in practice: Review of software for regression with unmeasured confounding 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- CONSORT-TM: Text classification models for assessing the completeness of randomized controlled trial publications 91%
- Widely accessible prognostication using medical history for fetal growth restriction and small for gestational age in nationwide insured women 89%
- Accurate Prediction of Breast Cancer Survival through Coherent Voting Networks with Gene Expression Profiling 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Quantitative bias analysis methods for summary level epidemiologic data in the peer-reviewed literature: a systematic review 92%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 91%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Analysis of clinical trial registry entry histories using the novel R package cthist 93%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 92%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.