Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37771175›Full record

ReviewResearch synthesis methods2024

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses.

Peter J Godolphin, Nadine Marlin, Chantelle Cornett, David J Fisher, Jayne F Tierney, Ian R White, Ewelina Rogozińska

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Research synthesis methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  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

7 authors.

Peter J GodolphinMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0648-0992
Nadine MarlinPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2841-4825
Chantelle CornettMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3789-0361
David J FisherMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2512-2296
Jayne F TierneyMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4734-3014
Ian R WhiteMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6718-7661
Ewelina RogozińskaMRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, Institute of Clinical Trials and Methodology, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3455-0644

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_UU_00004/06National Institute for Health and Care Research NIHR301653NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowship DRF-2018-11-ST2-077Prostate Cancer UK RIA 16-ST2-020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicModels, StatisticalHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicconfoundingeffect modificationindividual participant datameta-analysisparticipant-level covariatetreatment-covariate interaction

Identifiers

PMID37771175
PMCPMC7617190

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.