This Article Free Full Text (Free PDF) Free References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (26) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Ades, A. E. Articles by Higgins, J. P. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ades, A. E. Articles by Higgins, J. P. T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB CHOLESTEROL Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Interpretation of Random-Effects Meta-Analysis in Decision Models

Medical Research Council, Health Services Research Collaboration, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK, I.Ades{at}bristol.ac.uk

G. Lu

Medical Research Council, Health Services Research Collaboration, Canynge Hall, Bristol, UK

J. P. T. Higgins, PhD

Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK

This article shows that the interpretation of the random-effects models used in meta-analysis to summarize heterogeneous treatment effects can have a marked effect on the results from decision models. Sources of variation in meta-analysis include the following: random variation in outcome definition (amounting to a form of measurement error), variation between the patient groups in different trials, variation between protocols, and variation in the way a given protocol is implemented. Each of these alternatives leads to a different model for how the heterogeneity in the effect sizes previously observed might relate to the effect size(s) in a future implementation. Furthermore, these alternative models require different computations and, when the net benefits are nonlinear in the efficacy parameters, result in different expected net benefits. The authors’ analysis suggests that the mean treatment effect from a random-effects meta-analysis will only seldom be an appropriate representation of the efficacy expected in a future implementation. Instead, modelers should consider either the predictive distribution of a future treatment effect, or they should assume that the future implementation will result in a distribution of treatment effects. A worked example, in a probabilistic, Bayesian posterior framework, is used to illustrate the alternative computations and to show how parameter uncertainty can be combined with variation between individuals and heterogeneity in meta-analysis.

Key Words: variation • uncertainty • random effects • meta-analysis • probabilistic decision analysis • Bayesian

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 25, No. 6, 646-654 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05282643


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. Lu and A. Ades Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons Biostat., October 1, 2009; 10(4): 792 - 805. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Livesey and R. Taylor Fructose consumption and consequences for glycation, plasma triacylglycerol, and body weight: meta-analyses and meta-regression models of intervention studies Am. J. Clinical Nutrition, November 1, 2008; 88(5): 1419 - 1437. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A E Ades, N. J Welton, D. Caldwell, M. Price, A. Goubar, and G. Lu Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making J Health Serv Res Policy, October 1, 2008; 13(suppl_3): 12 - 22. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. J. Sutton, N. J. Cooper, S. Goodacre, and M. Stevenson Integration of Meta-analysis and Economic Decision Modeling for Evaluating Diagnostic Tests Med Decis Making, September 1, 2008; 28(5): 650 - 667. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. P A Ioannidis, N. A Patsopoulos, and H. R Rothstein Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots BMJ, June 21, 2008; 336(7658): 1413 - 1415. [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Helfand and L. Saxton Medical Decision Making and Electronic Publishing Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 98 - 100. [PDF]

				N.J. Welton, I.R. White, G. Lu, J.P.T. Higgins, J. Hilden, and A.E. Ades Correction: Interpretation of Random Effects Meta-analysis in Decision Models Med Decis Making, March 1, 2007; 27(2): 212 - 214. [PDF]