Tasnim Hamza, Toshi A Furukawa, Nicola Orsini, Andrea Cipriani, Georgia Salanti
{"title":"Dose-effect meta-analysis for psychopharmacological interventions using randomised data.","authors":"Tasnim Hamza, Toshi A Furukawa, Nicola Orsini, Andrea Cipriani, Georgia Salanti","doi":"10.1136/ebmental-2021-300278","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The current practice in meta-analysis of the effects of psychopharmacological interventions ignors the administered dose or restricts the analysis in a dose range. This may introduce unnecessary uncertainty and heterogeneity. Methods have been developed to integrate the dose-effect models in meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We describe the two-stage and the one-stage models to conduct a dose-effect meta-analysis using common or random effects methods. We illustrate the methods on a dataset of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. The dataset comprises 60 randomised controlled trials. The dose-effect is measured on an odds ratio scale and is modelled using restricted cubic splines to detect departure from linearity.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The estimated summary curve indicates that the probability of response increases up to 30 mg/day of fluoxetine-equivalent which results in reaching 50% probability to respond. Beyond 40 mg/day, no further increase in the response is observed. The one-stage model includes all studies, resulting in slightly less uncertainty than the two-stage model where only part of the data is analysed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The dose-effect meta-analysis enables clinicians to understand how the effect of a drug changes as a function of its dose. Such analysis should be conducted in practice using the one-stage model that incorporates evidence from all available studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12233,"journal":{"name":"Evidence Based Mental Health","volume":"25 1","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":6.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10231575/pdf/ebmental-2021-300278.pdf","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence Based Mental Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2021-300278","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Abstract
Objective: The current practice in meta-analysis of the effects of psychopharmacological interventions ignors the administered dose or restricts the analysis in a dose range. This may introduce unnecessary uncertainty and heterogeneity. Methods have been developed to integrate the dose-effect models in meta-analysis.
Methods: We describe the two-stage and the one-stage models to conduct a dose-effect meta-analysis using common or random effects methods. We illustrate the methods on a dataset of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants. The dataset comprises 60 randomised controlled trials. The dose-effect is measured on an odds ratio scale and is modelled using restricted cubic splines to detect departure from linearity.
Results: The estimated summary curve indicates that the probability of response increases up to 30 mg/day of fluoxetine-equivalent which results in reaching 50% probability to respond. Beyond 40 mg/day, no further increase in the response is observed. The one-stage model includes all studies, resulting in slightly less uncertainty than the two-stage model where only part of the data is analysed.
Conclusions: The dose-effect meta-analysis enables clinicians to understand how the effect of a drug changes as a function of its dose. Such analysis should be conducted in practice using the one-stage model that incorporates evidence from all available studies.
期刊介绍:
Evidence-Based Mental Health alerts clinicians to important advances in treatment, diagnosis, aetiology, prognosis, continuing education, economic evaluation and qualitative research in mental health. Published by the British Psychological Society, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the BMJ Publishing Group the journal surveys a wide range of international medical journals applying strict criteria for the quality and validity of research. Clinicians assess the relevance of the best studies and the key details of these essential studies are presented in a succinct, informative abstract with an expert commentary on its clinical application.Evidence-Based Mental Health is a multidisciplinary, quarterly publication.