Investigation of the Utility of Multivariate Meta-Analysis Methods in Estimating the Summary Dose Response Curve.

IF 1.4 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Melepurakkal Sadanandan Deepthy, Kalesh Mappilakudy Karun, Kotten Thazhath Harichandrakumar, Narayanapillai Sreekumaran Nair
{"title":"Investigation of the Utility of Multivariate Meta-Analysis Methods in Estimating the Summary Dose Response Curve.","authors":"Melepurakkal Sadanandan Deepthy,&nbsp;Kalesh Mappilakudy Karun,&nbsp;Kotten Thazhath Harichandrakumar,&nbsp;Narayanapillai Sreekumaran Nair","doi":"10.34172/jrhs.2022.96","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Traditional meta-analyses often assess the effectiveness of different doses of the same intervention separately or examine the overall differences between intervention and placebo groups. The present study aimed to model the effect sizes obtained from different doses in multiple studies using a two-stage dose-response meta-analytic approach while taking dose variations into account.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Different dose-response meta-analysis models using linear, quadratic, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) functions were fitted. A two-stage approach utilizing multivariate meta-analysis was performed and the obtained results were compared with those of the univariate meta-analysis. A random effect dose-response meta-analysis was performed using data from an existing systematic review on combination therapy with zonisamide and anti-Parkinson drugs for Parkinson's disease. The effective or optimum dose for producing maximum response was also investigated. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the knots of the RCS model.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Dose-response meta-analysis was performed using data from four double-blinded randomized controlled trials with 724 and 309 patients with Parkinson's disease in dose and placebo arms, respectively. The quadratic model yielded the smallest Akaike information criterion (AIC), compared to the linear and RCS models, indicating it to be the best fit for the data.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Compared to the traditional approach, the two-stage approach could model the dose-dependent effect of zonisamide on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPRDS) part III score and predict the outcome for different doses through a single analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":17164,"journal":{"name":"Journal of research in health sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10422157/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of research in health sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/jrhs.2022.96","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Traditional meta-analyses often assess the effectiveness of different doses of the same intervention separately or examine the overall differences between intervention and placebo groups. The present study aimed to model the effect sizes obtained from different doses in multiple studies using a two-stage dose-response meta-analytic approach while taking dose variations into account.

Methods: Different dose-response meta-analysis models using linear, quadratic, and restricted cubic spline (RCS) functions were fitted. A two-stage approach utilizing multivariate meta-analysis was performed and the obtained results were compared with those of the univariate meta-analysis. A random effect dose-response meta-analysis was performed using data from an existing systematic review on combination therapy with zonisamide and anti-Parkinson drugs for Parkinson's disease. The effective or optimum dose for producing maximum response was also investigated. Moreover, a sensitivity analysis was performed by changing the knots of the RCS model.

Results: Dose-response meta-analysis was performed using data from four double-blinded randomized controlled trials with 724 and 309 patients with Parkinson's disease in dose and placebo arms, respectively. The quadratic model yielded the smallest Akaike information criterion (AIC), compared to the linear and RCS models, indicating it to be the best fit for the data.

Conclusion: Compared to the traditional approach, the two-stage approach could model the dose-dependent effect of zonisamide on the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPRDS) part III score and predict the outcome for different doses through a single analysis.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

多元荟萃分析方法在估计总剂量反应曲线中的效用研究。
背景:传统的荟萃分析通常单独评估同一干预措施的不同剂量的有效性,或检查干预组与安慰剂组之间的总体差异。本研究的目的是在考虑剂量变化的情况下,采用两阶段剂量-反应荟萃分析方法,对多个研究中不同剂量获得的效应量进行建模。方法:采用线性、二次和受限三次样条(RCS)函数拟合不同的剂量-反应元分析模型。采用多变量荟萃分析的两阶段方法,并将所得结果与单变量荟萃分析的结果进行比较。随机效应剂量反应荟萃分析使用现有的系统综述中关于佐尼沙胺和抗帕金森药物联合治疗帕金森病的数据。研究了产生最大反应的有效剂量或最佳剂量。此外,通过改变RCS模型的结点进行敏感性分析。结果:剂量-反应荟萃分析使用了4项双盲随机对照试验的数据,分别在剂量组和安慰剂组对724例和309例帕金森病患者进行了研究。与线性模型和RCS模型相比,二次模型得到的赤池信息准则(Akaike information criterion, AIC)最小,表明其最适合数据。结论:与传统方法相比,两阶段方法可以模拟唑尼沙胺对统一帕金森病评定量表(upds)第三部分评分的剂量依赖效应,并通过一次分析预测不同剂量的结局。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of research in health sciences
Journal of research in health sciences PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
13.30%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: The Journal of Research in Health Sciences (JRHS) is the official journal of the School of Public Health; Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, which is published quarterly. Since 2017, JRHS is published electronically. JRHS is a peer-reviewed, scientific publication which is produced quarterly and is a multidisciplinary journal in the field of public health, publishing contributions from Epidemiology, Biostatistics, Public Health, Occupational Health, Environmental Health, Health Education, and Preventive and Social Medicine. We do not publish clinical trials, nursing studies, animal studies, qualitative studies, nutritional studies, health insurance, and hospital management. In addition, we do not publish the results of laboratory and chemical studies in the field of ergonomics, occupational health, and environmental health
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信