论文标题
通过随机搜索变量选择,网络荟萃分析中的不一致识别
Inconsistency identification in network meta-analysis via stochastic search variable selection
论文作者
论文摘要
网络荟萃分析结果(NMA)的可靠性在于关键假设的合理性。该假设意味着在治疗比较中,效应修饰符的分布相似。在统计上,通过一致性假设表明了传递性,这表明直接和间接证据是一致的。已经提出了几种方法来评估一致性。一种流行的方法表明,在NMA模型中增加了不一致因素。我们通过描述每个不一致因素与候选者协变量来遵循不同的方向,其选择依赖于可变选择技术。我们提出的方法是随机搜索不一致因素选择(SSIF),通过应用随机搜索变量选择方法来确定是否应包括不一致因素,从而在本地和全球评估了一致性假设。每个不一致因素的后置液概率量化了特定比较的可能性不一致的可能性。我们使用后模型赔率或中位概率模型来决定不一致因素的重要性。直接证据和间接证据之间的差异可以纳入不一致的检测过程中。我们提出的方法的一个关键点是建立有关网络一致性的合理“信息”。先验是基于从201个已发布网络荟萃分析的信息派生的历史数据启发。我们提出的方法的性能在两个已发表的网络荟萃分析中进行了评估。所提出的方法在称为SSIFS的R软件包中公开使用,该软件包由这项工作的作者开发和维护。
The reliability of the results of network meta-analysis (NMA) lies in the plausibility of key assumption of transitivity. This assumption implies that the effect modifiers' distribution is similar across treatment comparisons. Transitivity is statistically manifested through the consistency assumption which suggests that direct and indirect evidence are in agreement. Several methods have been suggested to evaluate consistency. A popular approach suggests adding inconsistency factors to the NMA model. We follow a different direction by describing each inconsistency factor with a candidate covariate whose choice relies on variable selection techniques. Our proposed method, Stochastic Search Inconsistency Factor Selection (SSIFS), evaluates the consistency assumption both locally and globally, by applying the stochastic search variable selection method to determine whether the inconsistency factors should be included in the model. The posterior inclusion probability of each inconsistency factor quantifies how likely is a specific comparison to be inconsistent. We use posterior model odds or the median probability model to decide on the importance of inconsistency factors. Differences between direct and indirect evidence can be incorporated into the inconsistency detection process. A key point of our proposed approach is the construction of a reasonable "informative" prior concerning network consistency. The prior is based on the elicitation of information derived historical data from 201 published network meta-analyses. The performance of our proposed method is evaluated in two published network meta-analyses. The proposed methodology is publicly available in an R package called ssifs, developed and maintained by the authors of this work.