网络元分析中证据分裂模型的REML方法。

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Hans-Peter Piepho, Johannes Forkman, Waqas Ahmed Malik
{"title":"网络元分析中证据分裂模型的REML方法。","authors":"Hans-Peter Piepho,&nbsp;Johannes Forkman,&nbsp;Waqas Ahmed Malik","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1679","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Checking for possible inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence is an important task in network meta-analysis. Recently, an evidence-splitting (ES) model has been proposed, that allows separating direct and indirect evidence in a network and hence assessing inconsistency. A salient feature of this model is that the variance for heterogeneity appears in both the mean and the variance structure. Thus, full maximum likelihood (ML) has been proposed for estimating the parameters of this model. Maximum likelihood is known to yield biased variance component estimates in linear mixed models, and this problem is expected to also affect the ES model. The purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to propose a method based on residual (or restricted) maximum likelihood (REML). Our simulation shows that this new method is quite competitive to methods based on full ML in terms of bias and mean squared error. In addition, some limitations of the ES model are discussed. While this model splits direct and indirect evidence, it is not a plausible model for the cause of inconsistency.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 2","pages":"198-212"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1679","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A REML method for the evidence-splitting model in network meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Hans-Peter Piepho,&nbsp;Johannes Forkman,&nbsp;Waqas Ahmed Malik\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jrsm.1679\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Checking for possible inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence is an important task in network meta-analysis. Recently, an evidence-splitting (ES) model has been proposed, that allows separating direct and indirect evidence in a network and hence assessing inconsistency. A salient feature of this model is that the variance for heterogeneity appears in both the mean and the variance structure. Thus, full maximum likelihood (ML) has been proposed for estimating the parameters of this model. Maximum likelihood is known to yield biased variance component estimates in linear mixed models, and this problem is expected to also affect the ES model. The purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to propose a method based on residual (or restricted) maximum likelihood (REML). Our simulation shows that this new method is quite competitive to methods based on full ML in terms of bias and mean squared error. In addition, some limitations of the ES model are discussed. While this model splits direct and indirect evidence, it is not a plausible model for the cause of inconsistency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"volume\":\"15 2\",\"pages\":\"198-212\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1679\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1679\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1679","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

检验直接证据和间接证据之间可能存在的不一致是网络meta分析的重要任务。最近,一种证据分裂(ES)模型被提出,它允许在网络中分离直接和间接证据,从而评估不一致性。该模型的一个显著特征是异质性的方差同时出现在均值和方差结构中。因此,提出了全最大似然(ML)来估计该模型的参数。已知最大似然会在线性混合模型中产生偏方差分量估计,并且这个问题预计也会影响ES模型。因此,本文的目的是提出一种基于残差(或限制)最大似然(REML)的方法。我们的模拟表明,这种新方法在偏差和均方误差方面与基于全ML的方法相当有竞争力。此外,还讨论了ES模型的一些局限性。虽然这个模型将直接证据和间接证据分开,但它并不是一个解释不一致原因的合理模型。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A REML method for the evidence-splitting model in network meta-analysis

A REML method for the evidence-splitting model in network meta-analysis

Checking for possible inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence is an important task in network meta-analysis. Recently, an evidence-splitting (ES) model has been proposed, that allows separating direct and indirect evidence in a network and hence assessing inconsistency. A salient feature of this model is that the variance for heterogeneity appears in both the mean and the variance structure. Thus, full maximum likelihood (ML) has been proposed for estimating the parameters of this model. Maximum likelihood is known to yield biased variance component estimates in linear mixed models, and this problem is expected to also affect the ES model. The purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to propose a method based on residual (or restricted) maximum likelihood (REML). Our simulation shows that this new method is quite competitive to methods based on full ML in terms of bias and mean squared error. In addition, some limitations of the ES model are discussed. While this model splits direct and indirect evidence, it is not a plausible model for the cause of inconsistency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
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