This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tudur Smith, C. Articles by Williamson, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tudur Smith, C. Articles by Williamson, P. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

A comparison of methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individual patient data with time to event outcomes

Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GS and Cancer Research UK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit, cat1{at}liv.ac.uk

Paula Ruth Williamson

Centre for Medical Statistics and Health Evaluation, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, L69 3GS and Cancer Research UK Liverpool Cancer Trials Unit

Background Alternative methods for individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes have been established and utilized in practice. The most common approach is a stratified log-rank analysis. The IPD approach is considered to be the gold standard approach for meta-analysis and is becoming increasingly more popular but the performance of different methods has not been studied previously.

Purpose To compare commonly used methods for fixed effects meta-analysis of individual patient time-to-event data.

Methods The stratified log-rank analysis, an inverse variance weighted average of Cox model estimates, and the stratified Cox regression model are compared. First, a theoretical comparison of approaches is undertaken. Second, the bias and coverage are assessed for the pooled hazard ratio using simulated data under commonly encountered meta-analysis conditions. Finally, a comparison is presented using empirical data from four separate systematic reviews of anti-epileptic drug trials where IPD are available for two time-to-event outcomes.

Results For hazard ratio close to 1 with minimal heterogeneity between trials, theoretical results suggest similar results should be expected from all the three methods. Results for empirical and simulated data are in keeping with the theoretical results and show all the three methods perform well under these conditions. When there is no heterogeneity and the proportional hazards assumption holds, the stratified Cox model and inverse variance weighted average produce similar estimates of the pooled treatment effect and are to be preferred to the stratified log-rank analysis when the underlying treatment effect is large. Coverage values diminish for all the three methods and are below 95% for low or moderate heterogeneity. The low coverage values highlight the need for models that appropriately account for or explore the between trial variation.

Limitations Until larger simulations can be undertaken, conclusions based on the simulated and empirical data should only be applied to small meta-analyses of four or five trials.

Conclusions These investigations suggest that under normal conditions all three methods provide similar results. For moderate heterogeneity coverage for all the three fixed effects models depreciates. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 621—630. http://ctj.sagepub.com

References

• Chalmers I. The Cochrane Collaboration: preparing, maintaining and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1993; 703: 156—65.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Berlin JA, Santanna J., Schmid CH, et al. Individual patient versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: Ecological bias rears its ugly head. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 371—87.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Williamson PR, Marson AG, Tudur C., et al. Individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized anti-epileptic drug monotherapy trials. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2000; 6: 205—14.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Stewart L., Clarke M. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14: 2057—79.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Clarke M., Stewart L., Pignon J-P., et al. Individual patient data meta-analyses in cancer. British Journal of Cancer 1998; 77: 2036—44.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. Treatment of Early Breast Cancer, Worldwide Evidence 1985—90. Volume 1. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group. 1990. Oxford University Press.
• Simmonds MC, Higgins JPT, Stewart LA, et al. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clinical Trials 2005; 2: 209—17.[CrossRef]
• Smith CT, Williamson PR, Marson AG Investigating heterogeneity in an individual patient data meta-analysis of time-to-event outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2005; 24: 1307—19.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Collett D. Modelling Survival Data in Medical Research. Chapman & Hall, Great Britain, 1994.
• Yusuf S., Peto R., Lewis J., et al. Beta Blockade during and after myocardial infarction: An overview of the randomized trials. Progress in Cardiovascular Disease 1985; 27: 335—71.[CrossRef]
• Berry G., Kitchin RM, Mock PA A comparison of two sample hazard ratio estimators based on the logrank test. Statistics in Medicine 1991; 10: 749—55.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• The Cochrane Library. Issue 4, Wiley, Chichester, 2006.
• Marson AG, Williamson PR, Hutton JL, et al. Carbamazepine versus valproate monotherapy for epilepsy (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, Update Software, Oxford, 2000.
• Smith CT, Marson AG, Williamson PR Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, Update Software, Oxford, 2003.
• Smith CT, Marson AG, Williamson PR Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, Update Software, Oxford, 2001.
• Gamble CL, Marson AG, Williamson PR Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy (Protocol for a Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, Update Software, Oxford, 2004.
• Greenland S., Salvan A. Bias in the one-step method for pooling study results. Statistics in Medicine 1990; 9: 247—52.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal 2003; 327: 557—60.[Free Full Text]
• Hardy RJ, Thompson SG Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 841—56.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Thompson DG, Higgins JPT. Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit? Lancet 2005; 365: 341—46.[Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Higgins JPT, Whitehead A., Turner RM, et al. Meta-analysis of continuous outcome data from individual patients. Statistics in Medicine 2001; 20: 2219—41.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Jafar TH, Schmid CH, Landa M., et al. Progression of chronic kidney disease: the role of blood pressure control, proteinuria, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition: a patient-level meta-analysis. Annals of Internal Medicine 2003; 139: 244—52.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
• Thompson SG, Turner RM, Warn DE Multilevel models for meta-analysis, and their application to absolute risk differences. Statistical Methods in Medical Research 2001; 10: 375—92.[CrossRef]
• Parmar MKB, Torri V., Stewart L. Extracting summary statistics to perform meta-analysis of the published literature for survival end-points. Statistics in Medicine 1998; 17: 2815—34.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Williamson PR, Tudur Smith C, Hutton J., et al. Aggregate data meta-analysis with time-to-event outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21: 3337—51.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]

Clinical Trials, Vol. 4, No. 6, 621-630 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774507085276


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Tudur Smith, C. Articles by Williamson, P. R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tudur Smith, C. Articles by Williamson, P. R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?