估算两阶段个体参与者数据元分析中的相加交互作用

IF 5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Maartje Basten, Lonneke A van Tuijl, Kuan-Yu Pan, Adriaan W Hoogendoorn, Femke Lamers, Adelita V Ranchor, Joost Dekker, Philipp Frank, Henrike Galenkamp, Mirjam J Knol, Nolwenn Noisel, Yves Payette, Erik R Sund, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Lützen Portengen, Mirjam I Geerlings
{"title":"估算两阶段个体参与者数据元分析中的相加交互作用","authors":"Maartje Basten, Lonneke A van Tuijl, Kuan-Yu Pan, Adriaan W Hoogendoorn, Femke Lamers, Adelita V Ranchor, Joost Dekker, Philipp Frank, Henrike Galenkamp, Mirjam J Knol, Nolwenn Noisel, Yves Payette, Erik R Sund, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Lützen Portengen, Mirjam I Geerlings","doi":"10.1093/aje/kwae325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis provides important opportunities to study interaction and effect modification for which individual studies often lack power. While previous meta-analyses have commonly focused on multiplicative interaction, additive interaction holds greater relevance for public health and may in certain contexts better reflect biological interaction. Methodological literature on interaction in IPD meta-analysis does not cover additive interaction for models including binary or time-to-event outcomes. We aimed to describe how the Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI) and other measures of additive interaction or effect modification can be validly estimated within 2-stage IPD meta-analysis. First, we explain why direct pooling of study-level RERI estimates may lead to invalid results. Next, we propose a 3-step procedure to estimate additive interaction: (1) estimate effects of both exposures and their product term on the outcome within each individual study; (2) pool study-specific estimates using multivariate meta-analysis; (3) estimate an overall RERI and 95% confidence interval based on the pooled effect estimates. We illustrate this procedure by investigating interaction between depression and smoking and risk of smoking-related cancers using data from the PSYchosocial factors and Cancer (PSY-CA) consortium. We discuss implications of this procedure, including the application in meta-analysis based on published data.</p>","PeriodicalId":7472,"journal":{"name":"American journal of epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":"1661-1667"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Estimating additive interaction in 2-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Maartje Basten, Lonneke A van Tuijl, Kuan-Yu Pan, Adriaan W Hoogendoorn, Femke Lamers, Adelita V Ranchor, Joost Dekker, Philipp Frank, Henrike Galenkamp, Mirjam J Knol, Nolwenn Noisel, Yves Payette, Erik R Sund, Aeilko H Zwinderman, Lützen Portengen, Mirjam I Geerlings\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/aje/kwae325\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis provides important opportunities to study interaction and effect modification for which individual studies often lack power. While previous meta-analyses have commonly focused on multiplicative interaction, additive interaction holds greater relevance for public health and may in certain contexts better reflect biological interaction. Methodological literature on interaction in IPD meta-analysis does not cover additive interaction for models including binary or time-to-event outcomes. We aimed to describe how the Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI) and other measures of additive interaction or effect modification can be validly estimated within 2-stage IPD meta-analysis. First, we explain why direct pooling of study-level RERI estimates may lead to invalid results. Next, we propose a 3-step procedure to estimate additive interaction: (1) estimate effects of both exposures and their product term on the outcome within each individual study; (2) pool study-specific estimates using multivariate meta-analysis; (3) estimate an overall RERI and 95% confidence interval based on the pooled effect estimates. We illustrate this procedure by investigating interaction between depression and smoking and risk of smoking-related cancers using data from the PSYchosocial factors and Cancer (PSY-CA) consortium. We discuss implications of this procedure, including the application in meta-analysis based on published data.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7472,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1661-1667\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American journal of epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae325\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwae325","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

个体参与者数据(IPD)荟萃分析为研究交互作用和效应修正提供了重要机会,而个体研究往往缺乏这方面的能力。虽然以往的荟萃分析通常侧重于乘法交互作用,但加法交互作用与公共卫生的相关性更大,在某些情况下可能能更好地反映生物交互作用。IPD 荟萃分析中有关交互作用的方法学文献并未涉及二元或时间到事件结果模型的加性交互作用。我们的目的是描述如何在两阶段 IPD meta 分析中有效估算交互作用导致的相对超额风险(RERI)和其他衡量加性交互作用或效应修饰的指标。首先,我们解释了为什么直接汇集研究水平的 RERI 估计值可能会导致无效结果。接下来,我们提出了估算加性相互作用的三步程序:1)估算每项研究中暴露因子及其乘积项对结果的影响;2)使用多元荟萃分析汇集特定研究的估算值;3)根据汇集效应估算值估算总体 RERI 和 95% 置信区间。我们利用 PSYchosocial factors and Cancer(PSY-CA)联盟的数据调查了抑郁和吸烟之间的相互作用以及吸烟相关癌症的风险,以此说明这一程序。我们讨论了这一程序的意义,包括在基于已发表数据的荟萃分析中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Estimating additive interaction in 2-stage individual participant data meta-analysis.

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis provides important opportunities to study interaction and effect modification for which individual studies often lack power. While previous meta-analyses have commonly focused on multiplicative interaction, additive interaction holds greater relevance for public health and may in certain contexts better reflect biological interaction. Methodological literature on interaction in IPD meta-analysis does not cover additive interaction for models including binary or time-to-event outcomes. We aimed to describe how the Relative Excess Risk due to Interaction (RERI) and other measures of additive interaction or effect modification can be validly estimated within 2-stage IPD meta-analysis. First, we explain why direct pooling of study-level RERI estimates may lead to invalid results. Next, we propose a 3-step procedure to estimate additive interaction: (1) estimate effects of both exposures and their product term on the outcome within each individual study; (2) pool study-specific estimates using multivariate meta-analysis; (3) estimate an overall RERI and 95% confidence interval based on the pooled effect estimates. We illustrate this procedure by investigating interaction between depression and smoking and risk of smoking-related cancers using data from the PSYchosocial factors and Cancer (PSY-CA) consortium. We discuss implications of this procedure, including the application in meta-analysis based on published data.

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
American journal of epidemiology
American journal of epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
4.00%
发文量
221
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Epidemiology is the oldest and one of the premier epidemiologic journals devoted to the publication of empirical research findings, opinion pieces, and methodological developments in the field of epidemiologic research. It is a peer-reviewed journal aimed at both fellow epidemiologists and those who use epidemiologic data, including public health workers and clinicians.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信