Combining treatment effects from mixed populations in meta-analysis: a review of methods.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lorna Wheaton, Sandro Gsteiger, Stephanie Hubbard, Sylwia Bujkiewicz
{"title":"Combining treatment effects from mixed populations in meta-analysis: a review of methods.","authors":"Lorna Wheaton, Sandro Gsteiger, Stephanie Hubbard, Sylwia Bujkiewicz","doi":"10.1186/s12874-025-02507-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Meta-analysis is a useful method for combining evidence from multiple studies to detect treatment effects that could perhaps not be identified in a single study. While traditionally meta-analysis has assumed that populations of included studies are comparable, over recent years the development of precision medicine has led to identification of predictive genetic biomarkers which has resulted in trials conducted in mixed biomarker populations. For example, early trials may be conducted in patients with any biomarker status with no subgroup analysis, later trials may be conducted in patients with any biomarker status and subgroup analysis, and most recent trials may be conducted in biomarker-positive patients only. This poses a problem for traditional meta-analysis methods which rely on the assumption of somewhat comparable populations across studies. In this review, we provide a background to meta-analysis methods allowing for synthesis of data with mixed biomarker populations across trials.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For the methodological review, PubMed was searched to identify methodological papers on evidence synthesis for mixed populations. Several identified methods were applied to an illustrative example in metastatic colorectal cancer.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified eight methods for evidence synthesis of mixed populations where three methods are applicable to pairwise meta-analysis using aggregate data (AD), three methods are applicable to network meta-analysis using AD, and two methods are applicable to network meta-analysis using AD and individual participant data (IPD). The identified methods are described, including a discussion of the benefits and limitations of each method.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Methods for synthesis of data from mixed populations are split into methods which use (a) AD, (b) IPD, and (c) both AD and IPD. While methods which utilise IPD achieve superior statistical qualities, this is at the expense of ease of access to the data. Furthermore, it is important to consider the context of the decision problem in order to select the most appropriate modelling framework.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"25 1","pages":"86"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11963434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02507-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Meta-analysis is a useful method for combining evidence from multiple studies to detect treatment effects that could perhaps not be identified in a single study. While traditionally meta-analysis has assumed that populations of included studies are comparable, over recent years the development of precision medicine has led to identification of predictive genetic biomarkers which has resulted in trials conducted in mixed biomarker populations. For example, early trials may be conducted in patients with any biomarker status with no subgroup analysis, later trials may be conducted in patients with any biomarker status and subgroup analysis, and most recent trials may be conducted in biomarker-positive patients only. This poses a problem for traditional meta-analysis methods which rely on the assumption of somewhat comparable populations across studies. In this review, we provide a background to meta-analysis methods allowing for synthesis of data with mixed biomarker populations across trials.

Methods: For the methodological review, PubMed was searched to identify methodological papers on evidence synthesis for mixed populations. Several identified methods were applied to an illustrative example in metastatic colorectal cancer.

Results: We identified eight methods for evidence synthesis of mixed populations where three methods are applicable to pairwise meta-analysis using aggregate data (AD), three methods are applicable to network meta-analysis using AD, and two methods are applicable to network meta-analysis using AD and individual participant data (IPD). The identified methods are described, including a discussion of the benefits and limitations of each method.

Conclusions: Methods for synthesis of data from mixed populations are split into methods which use (a) AD, (b) IPD, and (c) both AD and IPD. While methods which utilise IPD achieve superior statistical qualities, this is at the expense of ease of access to the data. Furthermore, it is important to consider the context of the decision problem in order to select the most appropriate modelling framework.

背景:荟萃分析是一种有用的方法,可将多项研究的证据结合起来,以检测单项研究可能无法发现的治疗效果。传统上,荟萃分析假定纳入研究的人群具有可比性,但近年来,随着精准医疗的发展,人们发现了具有预测性的基因生物标志物,从而在混合生物标志物人群中开展试验。例如,早期的试验可能在任何生物标记物状态的患者中进行,不进行亚组分析;后来的试验可能在任何生物标记物状态的患者中进行,并进行亚组分析;而最近的试验可能只在生物标记物阳性的患者中进行。这就给传统的荟萃分析方法带来了问题,因为传统的荟萃分析方法依赖于假设各研究的研究对象具有一定的可比性。在这篇综述中,我们介绍了荟萃分析方法的背景,这些方法可以综合不同试验中生物标志物混合人群的数据:为了进行方法学综述,我们检索了 PubMed,以确定有关混合人群证据综合的方法学论文。在转移性结直肠癌的示例中应用了几种已确定的方法:我们确定了八种混合人群证据综合方法,其中三种方法适用于使用总体数据(AD)的配对荟萃分析,三种方法适用于使用AD的网络荟萃分析,两种方法适用于使用AD和个体参与者数据(IPD)的网络荟萃分析。本文介绍了已确定的方法,包括对每种方法的优点和局限性的讨论:对来自混合人群的数据进行综合分析的方法分为以下几种:(a) 使用 AD 的方法;(b) 使用 IPD 的方法;(c) 同时使用 AD 和 IPD 的方法。虽然使用 IPD 的方法在统计质量上更胜一筹,但这是以数据获取的便利性为代价的。此外,重要的是要考虑决策问题的背景,以选择最合适的建模框架。
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
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
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