Emergent approaches to the meta-analysis of multiple heterogeneous complex interventions

BMC Medical Research Methodology

James Thomas¹  Chris Bonell¹  G. J. Melendez-Torres² 

[1] Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London, University of London, London, UK;Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention, Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

关键词: Network meta-analysis;    Multiple interventions meta-analysis;    Meta-analysis;    Complex interventions;    Systematic review;   

Others  :  1212268
DOI  :  10.1186/s12874-015-0040-z

 received in 2014-11-14, accepted in 2015-05-26,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Multiple interventions meta-analysis has been recommended in the methodological literature as a tool for evidence synthesis when a heterogeneous set of interventions is included in the same review—and, more recently, when a heterogeneous set of complex interventions is included. However, there is little guidance on the use of this method with complex interventions. This article suggests two approaches to model complexity and heterogeneity through this method.

Discussion

‘Clinically meaningful units’ groups interventions by modality or similar theory of change, whereas ‘components and dismantling’ separates out interventions into combinations of components and either groups interventions by the combination of components they demonstrate or extracts effects for each identified component and, possibly, interactions between components. Future work in systematic review methodology should aim to understand how to develop taxonomies of components or theories of change that are internally relevant to the studies in these multiple interventions meta-analyses.

Summary

Despite little meaningful prior guidance to its use in this context, multiple interventions meta-analysis has the potential to be a useful tool for synthesising heterogeneous sets of complex interventions. Researchers should choose an approach in accordance with their specific aims in their systematic review.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Melendez-Torres et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Salanti G. Indirect and mixed-treatment comparison, network, or multiple-treatments meta-analysis: many names, many benefits, many concerns for the next generation evidence synthesis tool. Res Synth Methods. 2012; 3:80-97.
• [2]Lumley T. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2002; 21:2313-24.
• [3]Mills EJ, Bansback N, Ghement I, Thorlund K, Kelly S, Puhan MA et al.. Multiple treatment comparison meta-analyses: a step forward into complexity. Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 3:193-202.
• [4]Petticrew M, Anderson L, Elder R, Grimshaw J, Hopkins D, Hahn R, Krause L et al.. Complex interventions and their implications for systematic reviews: a pragmatic approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66:1209-14.
• [5]Petticrew M, Rehfuess E, Noyes J, Higgins JPT, Mayhew A, Pantoja T et al.. Synthesizing evidence on complex interventions: how meta-analytical, qualitative, and mixed-method approaches can contribute. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66:1230-43.
• [6]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337:a1655.
• [7]Weiss C, Connell J. New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods, and Contexts. The Aspen Institute, Washington, D.C.; 1995.
• [8]Bonell C, Fletcher A, Morton M, Lorenc T, Moore L. Realist randomised controlled trials: A new approach to evaluating complex public health interventions. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 44:1-8.
• [9]Salanti G, Higgins JPT, Ades AE, Ioannidis JPA. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008; 17:279-301.
• [10]Salanti G, Ades A, Ioannidis JPA. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64:163-71.
• [11]Achana F, Hubbard S, Sutton A, Kendrick D, Cooper N. An exploration of synthesis methods in public health evaluations of interventions concludes that the use of modern statistical methods would be beneficial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67:376-90.
• [12]Higgins JPT, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 1996; 15:2733-49.
• [13]Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004; 23:3105-24.
• [14]Dias S, Sutton AJ, Ades AE, Welton NJ. Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 2: a Generalized Linear Modeling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Med Decis Mak. 2013; 33:607-17.
• [15]Tharyan P. Introducing conceptual and analytical clarity on dimensions of complexity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66:1202-4.
• [16]Pigott T, Shepperd S. Identifying, documenting, and examining heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66:1244-50.
• [17]Grant E, Calderbank-Batista T. Network Meta-Analysis for Complex Social Interventions: Problems and Potential. J Soc Social Work Res. 2013; 4:406-20.
• [18]Webster-Stratton C, Reid MJ, Stoolmiller M. Preventing conduct problems and improving school readiness: evaluation of the Incredible Years Teacher and Child Training Programs in high-risk schools. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2008; 49:471-88.
• [19]Prinz RJ, Sanders MR. Adopting a population-level approach to parenting and family support interventions. Clin Psychol Rev. 2007; 27:739-49.
• [20]Barth J, Munder T, Gerger H, Nuesch E, Trelle S, Znoj H et al.. Comparative efficacy of seven psychotherapeutic interventions for patients with depression: a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med. 2013; 10:e1001454.
• [21]Mayo-Wilson E, Dias S, Mavranezouli I, Kew K, Clark DM, Ades AE et al.. Psychological and pharmacological interventions for social anxiety disorder in adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry. 2014; 1:368-76.
• [22]Butler AC, Chapman JE, Forman EM, Beck AT. The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: a review of meta-analyses. Clin Psychol Rev. 2006; 26:17-31.
• [23]Beck A. The Current State of Cognitive Therapy: a 40-Year Retrospective. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005; 62:953-9.
• [24]Kriston L, von Wolff A, Westphal A, Holzel LP, Harter M. Efficacy and acceptability of acute treatments for persistent depressive disorder: a network meta-analysis. Depress Anxiety. 2014; 31:621-30.
• [25]Dias S, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Ades AE. Checking consistency in mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2010; 29:932-44.
• [26]Lu G, Ades AE. Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc. 2006; 101:447-59.
• [27]Chorpita BF, Daleiden EL, Weisz JR. Identifying and Selecting the Common Elements of Evidence Based Interventions: A Distillation and Matching Model. Ment Health Serv Res. 2005; 7:5-20.
• [28]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how ‘out of control’ can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004; 328:1561-3.
• [29]Cooper NJ, Kendrick D, Achana F, Dhiman P, He Z, Wynn P et al.. Network meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to increase the uptake of smoke alarms. Epidemiol Rev. 2012; 34:32-45.
• [30]Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Adamopoulos E, Vedhara K. Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis of complex interventions: psychological interventions in coronary heart disease. Am J Epidemiol. 2009; 169:1158-65.
• [31]Madan J, Chen Y-F, Aveyard P, Wang D, Yahaya I, Munafo M et al.. Synthesis of evidence on heterogeneous interventions with multiple outcomes recorded over multiple follow-up times reported inconsistently: a smoking cessation case-study. J R Stat Soc Ser A (Statistics Soc). 2014; 177:295-314.
• [32]Collins LM, Murphy SA, Strecher V. The Multiphase Optimization Strategy (MOST) and the Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial (SMART). New Methods for More Potent eHealth Interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2007; 32:112-8.
• [33]Naci H, Dias S, Ades AE. Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. BMJ. 2014; 349:g5741.
• [34]Soares MO, Welton NJ, Harrison DA, Peura P, Shankar-Hari M, Harvey SE et al.. An evaluation of the feasibility, cost and value of information of a multicentre randomised controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin for sepsis (severe sepsis and septic shock): incorporating a systematic review, meta-analysis and value of information analysis. Health Technol Assess. 2012; 16:1-186.
• [35]Freeman KA, Riley A, Duke DC, Fu R. Systematic review and meta-analysis of behavioral interventions for fecal incontinence with constipation. J Pediatr Psychol. 2014; 39:887-902.
• [36]Michie S, Ashford S, Sniehotta FF, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP, Dombrowski SU, Bishop A, French DP. A refined taxonomy of behaviour change techniques to help people change their physical activity and healthy eating behaviours: the CALO-RE taxonomy. Psychol Health. 2011; 26:1479-98.
• [37]Chorpita BF, Becker KD, Daleiden EL. Understanding the common elements of evidence-based practice: misconceptions and clinical examples. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2007; 46:647-52.