1 / 32

Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and flexible forest plots David Fisher MRC Clinical Trials Unit Hub

Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and flexible forest plots David Fisher MRC Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology Research at UCL df@ctu.mrc.ac.uk. 2013 UK Stata Users Group Meeting Cass Business School, London. Outline of presentation.

kaylee
Download Presentation

Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and flexible forest plots David Fisher MRC Clinical Trials Unit Hub

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Two-stage individual participant data meta-analysis and flexible forest plots David Fisher MRC Clinical Trials Unit Hub for Trials Methodology Research at UCL df@ctu.mrc.ac.uk 2013 UK Stata Users Group Meeting Cass Business School, London

  2. Outline of presentation • Introduction to individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) • IPD vs aggregate-data (AD) MA • “One-stage” vs “two-stage” IPD MA • The ipdmetan command • Basic use; comparison with metan • Covariate interactions • Combining AD with IPD • Advanced syntax • The forestplot command • Interface with ipdmetan • Stand-alone use and “stacking” • Summary and Conclusion

  3. Introduction to IPD meta-analysis • Meta-analysis (MA): • Use statistical methods to combine results of “similar” trials to give a single estimate of effect • Increase power & precision • Assess whether treatment effects are similar in across trials (heterogeneity) • Aggregate data (AD) vs IPD: • “Traditional” MAs gather results from publications • Aggregated across all patients in the trial; nothing is known of individual patients • IPD MAs gather raw data from trial investigators • Ensures all relevant patients are included • Ensures similar analysis across all trials • Allows more complex analysis, e.g. patient-level interactions

  4. “One-stage” IPD MA • Consider a linear regression (extension to GLMs or time-to-event regressions is straightforward) • For a one-stage IPD MA (i = trial, j = patient): where αi= trial identifiers β= overall treatment effect estimated across all trials i (with optional random effect ui) • Examples in Stata: • Fixed effects: regress y x i.trial • Random effects: xtmixed y x i.trial|| trial: x, nocons

  5. “Two-stage” IPD MA • For a two-stage IPD MA: for trial 1 … … for trial i • Then: and where • Weights wi may be altered to give random effects • e.g. DerSimonian & Laird, • Straightforward, but currently messy in Stata

  6. Treatment-covariate interactions • Assessment of patient-level covariate interactions is a great advantage of IPD • Arguably best done with “one-stage” • Main effects & interactions (& correlations) estimated simultaneously • But basic analysis also possible with “two-stage” • Relative effect (interaction coefficient) only • Same approach (inverse-variance) as for main effects • Ensures no estimation bias from between-trial effects • Can be presented in a forest plot, with assessment of heterogeneity etc. • Discussed in a published paper (Fisher 2011)

  7. “One-stage” vs “two-stage”

  8. Example data • IPD MA of randomised trials of post-operative radiotherapy (PORT) in non-small cell lung cancer • Trial ID (k=11) • Patient ID (n=2343) • Treatment arm • Outcome is censored time to overall survival (death from any cause) • Time to event (from randomisation) • Event type (death or censorship) • Certain covariate measurements also available, not necessarily for all trials or patients • Disease stage (factor, but treat as continuous) • (+ others)

  9. ipdmetan syntax ipdmetan, study(trialid) eform : stcox arm, strata(sex) Uses “prefix” command syntax: ipdmetan [exp_list], study(study_ID) [ ipd_options ad(aggregate_data_options) forestplot(forest_plot_options)] : estimation_command... default is to pool coeffs from first dep. var. (excluding baseline factor levels) Example: ipdmetan options after comma, before colon estimation_commandand options after colon

  10. Trials included: 11 Patients included: 2342 Meta-analysis pooling of main (treatment) effect estimate arm using Fixed-effects -------------------------------------------------------------------- trial reference | number | Effect [95% Conf. Interval] % Weight ----------------------+--------------------------------------------- belgium| 1.456 1.072 1.979 11.09 EORTC 08861 | 1.643 0.913 2.956 3.02 LILLE | 1.568 1.060 2.319 6.81 ... ... ... ... ... ----------------------+--------------------------------------------- Overall effect | 1.178 1.064 1.305 100.00 -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test of overall effect = 1: z = 3.153 p = 0.002 Heterogeneity Measures --------------------------------------------------- | value df p-value ---------------+----------------------------------- Cochrane Q | 15.88 10 0.103 I² (%) | 37.0% Modified H² | 0.588 tau² | 0.0180 --------------------------------------------------- I² = between-study variance (tau²) as a percentage of total variance Modified H² = ratio of tau² to typical within-study variance Variable label Output style similar to metan or metaan

  11. Basic forest plot

  12. Forest plot of covariate interactions ipdmetan, study(trialid) eforminteractionkeepall : stcox arm##c.stage Trials included: 8 Patients included: 1962 Meta-analysis pooling of interaction effect estimate 1.arm#c.stage2 using Fixed-effects default is to pool coeffs from first interaction term

  13. Inclusion of aggregate data • I don’t have a separate aggregate dataset, so I will create one artificially from my IPD dataset . ** Generate artificial trial subgrouping . gen subgroup = inlist(trialid, 1, 8, 12, 15) . label define subgroup_ 0 "Trial group 1" 1 "Trial group 2" . label values subgroup subgroup_ . ** Run ipdmetan within one of the subgroups; save the dataset . qui ipdmetan, study(trialid) by(subgroup) nooverallnograph saving(subgroup1.dta) : stcoxarm if subgroup==1, strata(sex)

  14. (Aside: Contents of subgroup1.dta)

  15. Inclusion of aggregate data: Syntax . ipdmetan, study(trialid) eformnooverall ad(subgroup1.dta, byad) : stcox arm if subgroup==0, strata(sex) Do not pool IPD and aggregate together Aggregate data syntax “byad” = treat IPD & aggregate data as subgroups estimation_command

  16. Inclusion of aggregate data: Screen output Trials included from IPD: 7 Patients included: 1333 Trials included from aggregate data: 4 Patients included: 1009 Pooling of main (treatment) effect estimate arm using Fixed-effects ------------------------------------------------------------------- trial reference | number | Effect [95% Conf. Interval] % Weight ---------------------+--------------------------------------------- IPD | LCSG 773 | 1.123 0.827 1.526 11.13 CAMS | 1.029 0.768 1.378 12.20 ... | ... Subgroup effect | 1.021 0.896 1.163 61.25 ---------------------+--------------------------------------------- Aggregate | belgium | 1.456 1.072 1.979 11.09 EORTC 08861 | 1.643 0.913 2.956 3.02 ... | ... Subgroup effect | 1.479 1.256 1.743 38.75 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Tests of effect size = 1: IPD z = 0.305 p = 0.760 Aggregate z = 4.682 p = 0.000

  17. Inclusion of aggregate data: Forest plot

  18. Advanced syntax example:non “e-class” estimation command ipdmetan(u[1,1]/V[1,1]) (1/sqrt(V[1,1])) , study(trialid) eform ad(subgroup1.dta, byad) lcols(evrate=_d %3.2f "Event rate") rcols(u[1,1] %5.2f "o-E(o)" V[1,1] %5.1f "V(o)") forest(nooverallnostatsnowt) : sts test arm if subgroup==0, mat(u V) Effect estimate & SE not from e(b) – must specify manually

  19. Advanced syntax example:columns of data in forestplot ipdmetan(u[1,1]/V[1,1]) (1/sqrt(V[1,1])) , study(trialid) eform ad(subgroup1.dta, byad) lcols(evrate=_d %3.2f "Event rate") rcols(u[1,1] %5.2f "o-E(o)" V[1,1] %5.1f "V(o)") forest(nooverallnostatsnowt) : sts test arm if subgroup==0, mat(u V) Mean of var currently in memory (note user-assigned name, to match with varname in aggregate dataset) Collect lists of returned stats

  20. Advanced syntax example: Forest plot

  21. Advanced syntax example: Forest plot These vars do not appear in the aggregate dataset, so are not plotted Subtotal cannot be calculated for aggregate data

  22. The forestplotcommand • Does not perform any calculations/estimations; simply plots existing data as a forest plot • Overall/subgroup estimates, spacings, labels, text columns etc. need to be created/arranged in advance • Ordering & spacing; marking of subgroup/overall estimates for plotting “diamonds”: _use • Principal left-hand data column (study IDs, heterogeneity etc. – string fmt): _labels • This setup is done automatically by ipdmetanbefore passing to forestplot • (but can also be done manually by user) • Multiple datasets can be passed to forestplot at once to create a single large “stacked” plot on common x-axis

  23. forestplot syntax forestplot [varlist] [if] [in] [, plot_optionsgraph_optionsusing_option] • varlist = manually specify varnames to plot • plot_optionscontrol the data plotting (within plot region) • graph_optionscontrol the surroundings (outside plot region; graph region) • using_option represents one or more options that allow suitable datasets (or parts of datasets) to be fed to forestplot, possibly with different plot_options, to form a single large forest plot on a single x-axis.

  24. using_optionsyntax using(filenamelist[if] [in] [, plot_options]) [using(filenamelist [if] [in] [, plot_options)] ...] • filenamelistis a list of one or more Stata-format datasets • parts may be specified with [if] [in] • same filename can appear more than once • order of filenames determines placement in graph • Different plot_optionsmay be specified to each using option • For same options applied to multiple files, place them in a filenamelist • For different options applied to each file, place each file in a different using option

  25. plot_options syntax • Based on metan syntax, options refer to different parts of the forest plot • Most options appropriate to the underlying twoway plot type are acceptable, with some exceptions

  26. Example forestplot dataset(“resultsset” from last ipdmetan example) Estimates; CIs; weights Extra data columns

  27. “Stacking” of forest plots • Imagine: • dataset on previous slide is saved as ipdtest.dta • we want IPD boxes to be red, and AD boxes to be green • We proceed as follows: • Run forestplot with two using(...) options, one for each part of the plot, with the same filename • (Alternatively: run ipdmetan twice and save under different filenames) • Specify our desired plot_options as suboptions to using()

  28. forestplot, using(ipdtest.dtaif _by==1, boxopt(mcolor(red))) using(ipdtest.dta if _by==2, boxopt(mcolor(green))) lcols(evrate) rcols(u_1_1_ V_1_1_) nooverallnostatsnowt

  29. Summary and conclusion • IPD is increasingly used, and its advantages widely accepted • Large numbers of MA scientists use two-stage models for analysing IPD • Currently only AD MA (e.g. metan) and one-stage IPD (e.g. xtmixed) commands exist in Stata • ipdmetan is a universal command for two-stage IPD MA • forestplotis a flexible forest plot command • does not carry out analysis itself, thus not restricted by it • may be useful outside the MA context (e.g. presenting trial subgroups)

  30. Further information • Other related programs (all call forestplot by default): • admetan: calls ipdmetan to analyse AD (direct alternative to metan) • ipdover: fit model within series of subgroups • petometan: perform meta-analysis of time-to-event data using the Peto (log-rank) method • SSC and Stata Journal article in near future

  31. Thankyou! • Questions, requests, bug reports: df@ctu.mrc.ac.uk • Thanks to: • Jayne Tierney, Patrick Royston • Ross Harris (author of metan) for advice & support • Assorted colleagues for testing • Reference: • Fisher D. J. et al. 2011. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 949-67

More Related