Searcharxiv⌕ Search

arXiv subjects

Christian Röver

Publications and source records attributed to Christian Röver.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

Utilizing subgroup information in random-effects meta-analysis of few studies

Random-effects meta-analyses are widely used for evidence synthesis in medical research. However, conventional methods based on large-sample approximations often exhibit poor performance in case of very few studies (e.g., 2 to 4), which is very common in practice. Existing methods aiming to improve small-sample performance either still suffer from poor estimates of heterogeneity or result in very wide confidence intervals. Motivated by meta-analyses evaluating surrogate outcomes, where units nested within a trial are often exploited when the number of trials is small, we propose an inference approach based on a common-effect estimator synthesizing data from the subgroup-level instead of the study-level. Two DerSimonian-Laird type heterogeneity estimators are derived using the subgroup-level data, and are incorporated into the Henmi-Copas type variance to adequately reflect variance components. We considered t-quantile based intervals to account for small-sample properties and used flexible degrees of freedom to reduce interval lengths. A comprehensive simulation is conducted to study the performance of our methods depending on various magnitudes of subgroup effects as well as subgroup prevalences. Some general recommendations are provided on how to select the subgroups, and methods are illustrated using two example applications.

stat.ME↗

Empirical prior distributions for treatment-by-subgroup interaction heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis

Subgroup analyses are central to the assessment of benefits and risks, where recommendations may depend on evidence that treatment effects differ across patient groups. Valid subgroup claims require evidence based on (within-trial) interaction estimates while accounting for the heterogeneity in those interaction effects. In the common case of only a few available studies, inference may benefit from the use of prior information on the expected amount of heterogeneity. Although between-study heterogeneity~($τ$) has been studied empirically for overall treatment effects, no such calibration exists for treatment-by-subgroup interaction effects. We derive empirical (predictive) prior distributions for overall and interaction effect heterogeneity from over 3{,}000 interaction meta-analyses drawn from the \emph{Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR)}. The resulting effect-measure-specific priors indicate that interaction heterogeneity tends to be substantially smaller than treatment effect heterogeneity. We also show that lower precision of within-trial interaction estimates makes interaction heterogeneity harder to identify. Therefore, the use of empirical priors is particularly valuable in sparse interaction meta-analyses. A motivating example illustrates how priors tailored to interaction effects may substantially improve precision in a meta-analysis compared with standard heterogeneity priors.

stat.ME↗

Including historical control data in simultaneous inference for pre-clinical multi-arm studies

In pre- and non-clinical toxicology, the reduction of animal use is highly desireable. Although approaches for possible sample size reduction in the concurrent control group were suggested previously under the virtual control groups framework for continuous endpoints, methodology that is applicable to binary outcomes that occur in long-term carcinogenicity studies is currently missing. In order to augment animals in the current control group with historical control data, we propose approaches that rely on dynamic Bayesian borrowing and simultaneous credible intervals for risk ratios. Several operation characteristics such as familywise error rate (FWER) and power are assessed via Monte-Carlo simulations and compared to the ones of approaches that rely on pooling of historical and current observations. It turned out that under optimal conditions, Bayesian approaches based on robustified prior distributions enable a substantial reduction of the control groups sample size, while still controlling the FWER up to a satisfactory level. Furthermore, at least to some extend, these approaches were able to protect against possible drift. This hightlights the potential of Bayesian study designs to reduce animal use in toxicology through re-use of the large pool of existing control data.

stat.ME↗

Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis of aggregate data on clinical events

To investigate intervention effects on rare events, meta-analysis techniques are commonly applied in order to assess the accumulated evidence. When it comes to adverse effects in clinical trials, these are often most adequately handled using survival methods. A common-effect model that is able to process data in commonly quoted formats in terms of hazard ratios has been proposed for this purpose. In order to accommodate potential heterogeneity between studies, we have extended the model by Holzhauer to a random-effects approach. The Bayesian model is described in detail, and applications to realistic data sets are discussed along with sensitivity analyses and Monte Carlo simulations to support the conclusions.

stat.ME↗

Consistent Bayesian meta-analysis on subgroup specific effects and interactions

Commonly, clinical trials report effects not only for the full study population but also for patient subgroups. Meta-analyses of subgroup-specific effects and treatment-by-subgroup interactions may be inconsistent, especially when trials apply different subgroup weightings. We show that meta-regression can, in principle, with a contribution adjustment, recover the same interaction inference regardless of whether interaction data or subgroup data are used. Our Bayesian framework for subgroup-data interaction meta-analysis inherently (i) adjusts for varying relative subgroup contribution, quantified by the information fraction (IF) within a trial; (ii) is robust to prevalence imbalance and variation; (iii) provides a self-contained, model-based approach; and (iv) can be used to incorporate prior information into interaction meta-analyses with few studies.The method is demonstrated using an example with as few as seven trials of disease-modifying therapies in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis. The Bayesian Contribution-adjusted Meta-analysis by Subgroup (CAMS) indicates a stronger treatment-by-disability interaction (relapse rate reduction) in patients with lower disability (EDSS <= 3.5) compared with the unadjusted model, while results for younger patients (age < 40 years) are unchanged.By controlling subgroup contribution while retaining subgroup interpretability, this approach enables reliable interaction decision-making when published subgroup data are available.Although the proposed CAMS approach is presented in a Bayesian context, it can also be implemented in frequentist or likelihood frameworks.

stat.ME↗

Meta-analytic-predictive priors based on a single study

Meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) priors have been proposed as a generic approach to deriving informative prior distributions, where external empirical data are processed to learn about certain parameter distributions. The use of MAP priors is also closely related to shrinkage estimation (also sometimes referred to as dynamic borrowing). A potentially odd situation arises when the external data consist only of a single study. Conceptually this is not a problem, it only implies that certain prior assumptions gain in importance and need to be specified with particular care. We outline this important, not uncommon special case and demonstrate its implementation and interpretation based on the normal-normal hierarchical model. The approach is illustrated using example applications in clinical medicine.

stat.ME↗

Subgroup comparisons within and across studies in meta-analysis

Subgroup-specific meta-analysis synthesizes treatment effects for patient subgroups across randomized trials. Methods include joint or separate modeling of subgroup effects and treatment-by-subgroup interactions, but inconsistencies arise when subgroup prevalence differs between studies (e.g., proportion of non-smokers). A key distinction is between study-generated evidence within trials and synthesis-generated evidence obtained by contrasting results across trials. This distinction matters for identifying which subgroups benefit or are harmed most. Failing to separate these evidence types can bias estimates and obscure true subgroup-specific effects, leading to misleading conclusions about relative efficacy. Standard approaches often suffer from such inconsistencies, motivating alternatives. We investigate standard and novel estimators of subgroup and interaction effects in random-effects meta-analysis and study their properties. We show that using the same weights across different analyses (SWADA) resolves inconsistencies from unbalanced subgroup distributions and improves subgroup and interaction estimates. Analytical and simulation studies demonstrate that SWADA reduces bias and improves coverage, especially under pronounced imbalance. To illustrate, we revisit recent meta-analyses of randomized trials of COVID-19 therapies. Beyond COVID-19, the findings outline a general strategy for correcting compositional bias in evidence synthesis, with implications for decision-making and statistical modeling. We recommend the Interaction RE-weights SWADA as a practical default when aggregation bias is plausible: it ensures collapsibility, maintains nominal coverage with modest width penalty, and yields BLUE properties for the interaction.

stat.ME↗

In silico clinical trials in drug development: a systematic review

In the context of clinical research, computational models have received increasing attention over the past decades. In this systematic review, we aimed to provide an overview of the role of so-called in silico clinical trials (ISCTs) in medical applications. Exemplary for the broad field of clinical medicine, we focused on in silico (IS) methods applied in drug development, sometimes also referred to as model informed drug development (MIDD). We searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov for published articles and registered clinical trials related to ISCTs. We identified 202 articles and 48 trials, and of these, 76 articles and 19 trials were directly linked to drug development. We extracted information from all 202 articles and 48 clinical trials and conducted a more detailed review of the methods used in the 76 articles that are connected to drug development. Regarding application, most articles and trials focused on cancer and imaging-related research while rare and pediatric diseases were only addressed in 14 articles and 5 trials, respectively. While some models were informed combining mechanistic knowledge with clinical or preclinical (in-vivo or in-vitro) data, the majority of models were fully data-driven, illustrating that clinical data is a crucial part in the process of generating synthetic data in ISCTs. Regarding reproducibility, a more detailed analysis revealed that only 24% (18 out of 76) of the articles provided an open-source implementation of the applied models, and in only 20% of the articles the generated synthetic data were publicly available. Despite the widely raised interest, we also found that it is still uncommon for ISCTs to be part of a registered clinical trial and their application is restricted to specific diseases leaving potential benefits of ISCTs not fully exploited.

q-bio.QM↗

A studentized permutation test for the treatment effect in individual participant data meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is a well-established tool used to combine data from several independent studies, each of which usually compares the effect of an experimental treatment with a control group. While meta-analyses are often performed using aggregated study summaries, they may also be conducted using individual participant data (IPD). Classical meta-analysis models may be generalized to handle continuous IPD by formulating them within a linear mixed model framework. IPD meta-analyses are commonly based on a small number of studies. Technically, inference for the overall treatment effect can be performed using Student-t approximation. However, as some approaches may not adequately control the type I error, Satterthwaite's or Kenward-Roger's method have been suggested to set the degrees-of-freedom parameter. The latter also adjusts the standard error of the treatment effect estimator. Nevertheless, these methods may be conservative. Since permutation tests are known to control the type I error and offer robustness to violations of distributional assumptions, we propose a studentized permutation test for the treatment effect based on permutations of standardized residuals across studies in IPD meta-analysis. Also, we construct confidence intervals for the treatment effect based on this test. The first interval is derived from the percentiles of the permutation distribution. The second interval is obtained by searching values closest to the effect estimate that are just significantly different from the true effect. In a simulation study, we demonstrate satisfactory performance of the proposed methods, often producing shorter confidence intervals compared with competitors.

stat.ME↗

Investigating the heterogeneity of "study twins"

Meta-analyses are commonly performed based on random-effects models, while in certain cases one might also argue in favour of a common-effect model. One such case may be given by the example of two "study twins" that are performed according to a common (or at least very similar) protocol. Here we investigate the particular case of meta-analysis of a pair of studies, e.g. summarizing the results of two confirmatory clinical trials in phase III of a clinical development programme. Thereby, we focus on the question of to what extent homogeneity or heterogeneity may be discernible, and include an empirical investigation of published ("twin") pairs of studies. A pair of estimates from two studies only provides very little evidence on homogeneity or heterogeneity of effects, and ad-hoc decision criteria may often be misleading.

stat.ME↗

How trace plots help interpret meta-analysis results

The trace plot is seldom used in meta-analysis, yet it is a very informative plot. In this article we define and illustrate what the trace plot is, and discuss why it is important. The Bayesian version of the plot combines the posterior density of tau, the between-study standard deviation, and the shrunken estimates of the study effects as a function of tau. With a small or moderate number of studies, tau is not estimated with much precision, and parameter estimates and shrunken study effect estimates can vary widely depending on the correct value of tau. The trace plot allows visualization of the sensitivity to tau along with a plot that shows which values of tau are plausible and which are implausible. A comparable frequentist or empirical Bayes version provides similar results. The concepts are illustrated using examples in meta-analysis and meta-regression; implementaton in R is facilitated in a Bayesian or frequentist framework using the bayesmeta and metafor packages, respectively.

stat.ME↗

Using meta-analytic priors to incorporate external information for study evaluation

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound impact on health, everyday life and economics around the world. An important complication that can arise in connection with a COVID-19 infection is acute kidney injury. A recent observational cohort study of COVID-19 patients treated at multiple sites of a tertiary care center in Berlin, Germany identified risk factors for the development of (severe) acute kidney injury. Since inferring results from a single study can be tricky, we validate these findings and potentially adjust results by including external information from other studies on acute kidney injury and COVID-19. Methods: We synthesize the results of the main study with other trials via a Bayesian meta-analysis. The external information is used to construct a predictive distribution and to derive posterior estimates for the study of interest. We focus on various important potential risk factors for acute kidney injury development such as mechanical ventilation, use of vasopressors, hypertension, obesity, diabetes, gender and smoking. Results: Our results show that depending on the degree of heterogeneity in the data the estimated effect sizes may be refined considerably with inclusion of external data. Our findings confirm that mechanical ventilation and use of vasopressors are important risk factors for the development of acute kidney injury in COVID-19 patients. Hypertension also appears to be a risk factor that should not be ignored. Shrinkage weights depended to a large extent on the estimated heterogeneity in the model. Conclusions: Our work shows how external information can be used to adjust the results from a primary study, using a Bayesian meta-analytic approach. How much information is borrowed from external studies will depend on the degree of heterogeneity present in the model.

stat.ME↗

Using the bayesmeta R package for Bayesian random-effects meta-regression

BACKGROUND: Random-effects meta-analysis within a hierarchical normal modeling framework is commonly implemented in a wide range of evidence synthesis applications. More general problems may even be tackled when considering meta-regression approaches that in addition allow for the inclusion of study-level covariables. METHODS: We describe the Bayesian meta-regression implementation provided in the bayesmeta R package including the choice of priors, and we illustrate its practical use. RESULTS: A wide range of example applications are given, such as binary and continuous covariables, subgroup analysis, indirect comparisons, and model selection. Example R code is provided. CONCLUSIONS: The bayesmeta package provides a flexible implementation. Due to the avoidance of MCMC methods, computations are fast and reproducible, facilitating quick sensitivity checks or large-scale simulation studies.

stat.CO↗

Summarizing empirical information on between-study heterogeneity for Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis

In Bayesian meta-analysis, the specification of prior probabilities for the between-study heterogeneity is commonly required, and is of particular benefit in situations where only few studies are included. Among the considerations in the set-up of such prior distributions, the consultation of available empirical data on a set of relevant past analyses sometimes plays a role. How exactly to summarize historical data sensibly is not immediately obvious; in particular, the investigation of an empirical collection of heterogeneity estimates will not target the actual problem and will usually only be of limited use. The commonly used normal-normal hierarchical model for random-effects meta-analysis is extended to infer a heterogeneity prior. Using an example data set, we demonstrate how to fit a distribution to empirically observed heterogeneity data from a set of meta-analyses. Considerations also include the choice of a parametric distribution family. Here, we focus on simple and readily applicable approaches to then translate these into (prior) probability distributions.

stat.ME↗

Double arcsine transform not appropriate for meta-analysis

The variance-stabilizing Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transform was originally proposed for inference on single proportions. Subsequently, its use has been suggested in the context of meta-analysis of proportions. While some erratic behaviour has been observed previously, here we point out and illustrate general issues of monotonicity and invertibility that make this transform unsuitable for meta-analysis purposes.

stat.ME↗

A straightforward meta-analysis approach for oncology phase I dose-finding studies

Phase I early-phase clinical studies aim at investigating the safety and the underlying dose-toxicity relationship of a drug or combination. While little may still be known about the compound's properties, it is crucial to consider quantitative information available from any studies that may have been conducted previously on the same drug. A meta-analytic approach has the advantages of being able to properly account for between-study heterogeneity, and it may be readily extended to prediction or shrinkage applications. Here we propose a simple and robust two-stage approach for the estimation of maximum tolerated dose(s) (MTDs) utilizing penalized logistic regression and Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis methodology. Implementation is facilitated using standard R packages. The properties of the proposed methods are investigated in Monte-Carlo simulations. The investigations are motivated and illustrated by two examples from oncology.

stat.ME↗

MetaStan: An R package for Bayesian (model-based) meta-analysis using Stan

Meta-analysis methods are used to combine evidence from multiple studies. Meta-regression as well as model-based meta-analysis are extensions of standard pairwise meta-analysis in which information about study-level covariates and (arm-level) dosing amount or exposure may be taken into account. A Bayesian approach to inference is very attractive in this context, especially when a meta-analysis is based on few studies only or rare events. In this article, we present the R package MetaStan which implements a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. A generalised linear mixed model (GLMM) framework is used to describe the pairwise meta-analysis, meta-regression and model-based meta-analysis models. Within the GLMM framework, the likelihood and link functions are adapted to reflect the nature of the data. For example, a binomial likelihood with a logit link is used to perform a meta-analysis based on datasets with dichotomous endpoints. Bayesian computations are conducted using Stan via the rstan interface. Stan uses a Hamiltonian Monte Carlo sampler which belongs to the family of Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. Stan implementations are done by using suitable parametrizations to ease computations. The user-friendly R package MetaStan, available on CRAN, supports a wide range of pairwise and model-based meta-analysis models. MetaStan provides fitting functions for pairwise meta-analysis with the option of including covariates and model-based meta-analysis. The supported outcome types are continuous, binary, and count. Forest plots for the pairwise meta-analysis and dose-response plots for the model-based meta-analysis can be obtained from the package. The use of MetaStan is demonstrated through clinical examples.

stat.ME↗

On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis

The normal-normal hierarchical model (NNHM) constitutes a simple and widely used framework for meta-analysis. In the common case of only few studies contributing to the meta-analysis, standard approaches to inference tend to perform poorly, and Bayesian meta-analysis has been suggested as a potential solution. The Bayesian approach, however, requires the sensible specification of prior distributions. While non-informative priors are commonly used for the overall mean effect, the use of weakly informative priors has been suggested for the heterogeneity parameter, in particular in the setting of (very) few studies. To date, however, a consensus on how to generally specify a weakly informative heterogeneity prior is lacking. Here we investigate the problem more closely and provide some guidance on prior specification.

stat.ME↗