Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35932153›Full record

SynthesisStatistics in medicine2022

Calculating the power to examine treatment-covariate interactions when planning an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials with a binary outcome.

Richard D Riley, Miriam Hattle, Gary S Collins, Rebecca Whittle, Joie Ensor

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Statistics in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Richard D RileyCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8699-0735
Miriam HattleCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1542-6277
Gary S CollinsCentre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2772-2316
Rebecca WhittleCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1793-0135
Joie EnsorCentre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7481-0282

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27294Cancer Research UK C49297/A27294Department of HealthMedical Research Council MR/V038168/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Before embarking on an individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) project, researchers and funders need assurance it is worth their time and cost. This should include consideration of how many studies are promising their IPD and, given the characteristics of these studies, the power of an IPDMA including them. Here, we show how to estimate the power of a planned IPDMA of randomized trials to examine treatment-covariate interactions at the participant level (ie, treatment effect modifiers). We focus on a binary outcome with binary or continuous covariates, and propose a three-step approach, which assumes the true interaction size is common to all trials. In step one, the user must specify a minimally important interaction size and, for each trial separately (eg, as obtained from trial publications), the following aggregate data: the number of participants and events in control and treatment groups, the mean and SD for each continuous covariate, and the proportion of participants in each category for each binary covariate. This allows the variance of the interaction estimate to be calculated for each trial, using an analytic solution for Fisher's information matrix from a logistic regression model. Step 2 calculates the variance of the summary interaction estimate from the planned IPDMA (equal to the inverse of the sum of the inverse trial variances from step 1), and step 3 calculates the corresponding power based on a two-sided Wald test. Stata and R code are provided, and two examples given for illustration. Extension to allow for between-study heterogeneity is also considered.

Indexed as

Data AnalysisModels, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicindividual participant data (IPD)meta-analysispowertreatment-covariate interactiontreatment effect modifier

Identifiers

PMID35932153
PMCPMC9805219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.