ArticlePloS one2021
A frequentist one-step model for a simple network meta-analysis of time-to-event data in presence of an effect modifier.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Individual Participant Data Network Meta-Analysis of Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy or Chemoradiotherapy in Esophageal or Gastroesophageal Junction Carcinoma.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIndividual patient data (IPD) present particular advantages in network meta-analysis (NMA) because interactions may lead an aggregated data (AD)-based model to wrong a treatment effect (TE) estimation. However, fewer works have been conducted for IPD with time-to-event contrary to binary outcomes. We aimed to develop a general frequentist one-step model for evaluating TE in the presence of interaction in a three-node NMA for time-to-event data.
methodsOne-step, frequentist, IPD-based Cox and Poisson generalized linear mixed models were proposed. We simulated a three-node network with or without a closed loop with (1) no interaction, (2) covariate-treatment interaction, and (3) covariate distribution heterogeneity and covariate-treatment interaction. These models were applied to the NMA (Meta-analyses of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] and Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]), which compared the addition of chemotherapy or modified radiotherapy (mRT) to loco-regional treatment with two direct comparisons. AD-based (contrast and meta-regression) models were used as reference.
resultsIn the simulated study, no IPD models failed to converge. IPD-based models performed well in all scenarios and configurations with small bias. There were few variations across different scenarios. In contrast, AD-based models performed well when there were no interactions, but demonstrated some bias when interaction existed and a larger one when the modifier was not distributed evenly. While meta-regression performed better than contrast-based only, it demonstrated a large variability in estimated TE. In the real data example, Cox and Poisson IPD-based models gave similar estimations of the model parameters. Interaction decomposition permitted by IPD explained the ecological bias observed in the meta-regression.
conclusionThe proposed general one-step frequentist Cox and Poisson models had small bias in the evaluation of a three-node network with interactions. They performed as well or better than AD-based models and should also be undertaken whenever possible.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.