Skip Navigation

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology 2004 34(12):717-721; doi:10.1093/jjco/hyh138
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Teramukai, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sakamoto, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Teramukai, S.
Right arrow Articles by Sakamoto, J.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© 2004 Foundation for Promotion of Cancer Research

Individual Patient-level and Study-level Meta-analysis for Investigating Modifiers of Treatment Effect

Satoshi Teramukai1, Yutaka Matsuyama2, Sachiko Mizuno2 and Junichi Sakamoto3

1 Division of Clinical Trial Design and Management, Translational Research Center, Kyoto University Hospital, 3 Department of Epidemiological and Clinical Research Information Management, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto and 2 Department of Biostatistics, School of Health Sciences and Nursing, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

For reprints and all correspondence: Satoshi Teramukai, Division of Clinical Trial Design and Management, Translational Research Center, Kyoto University Hospital, 54 Shogoin Kawara-cho, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, 606-8507, Japan. E-mail: steramu{at}kuhp.kyoto-u.ac.jp

Received May 31, 2004; accepted October 6, 2004

Background: In meta-analyses of clinical trials, clinicians are often interested in examining subset effects. Meta-regression of aggregated data is a usual approach for relating sources of variation in treatment effects to specific study characteristics. However, it is known that study-level analyses can lead to biased assessments and have some limitations in explaining the heterogeneity. An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis offers several advantages for this purpose.

Methods: We compared some regression analyses of IPD with meta-regression analyses of the summarized data using a real-world example in order to investigate whether a binary patient characteristic is related to treatment effect. We used data from 10 randomized trials for non-small-cell lung cancer (n = 1355).

Results: For treatment x stage interaction in IPD regression analysis, none of the tests of interactions was statistically significant. The meta-regression analysis gave a greater P-value than the IPD analysis. When excluding two studies, which had only stage I patients, the interaction was also not statistically significant in IPD analysis. On the other hand, the result of meta-regression analysis, though also showing no significant relationship, revealed a clear reversal in the direction of effect.

Conclusion: We suggest that the results of meta-regression analyses would not be as robust as those of regression analyses using IPD in examining potential modifiers of treatment effects. To investigate whether patient characteristics are related to treatment effects, we suggest that interaction tests and sensitivity analyses using IPD should be employed whenever possible.

Key Words: meta-analysis • heterogeneity • meta-regression • individual patient data • interaction test


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CJASNHome page
D. K. Hothi, A. S. Wade, R. Gilbert, and P. J. D. Winyard
Mild Fetal Renal Pelvis Dilatation--Much Ado About Nothing?
Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol., January 1, 2009; 4(1): 168 - 177.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.