Search

Non-linear exposure-outcome relationships such as between body mass index (BMI) and mortality are common. They are best explored as continuous functions using individual participant data from multiple studies. We explore two two-stage methods for meta-analysis of such relationships, where the confounder-adjusted relationship is first estimated in a non-linear regression model in each study, then combined across studies. The "metacurve" approach combines the estimated curves using multiple meta-analyses of the relative effect between a given exposure level and a reference level. The "mvmeta" approach combines the estimated model parameters in a single multivariate meta-analysis. Both methods allow the exposure-outcome relationship to differ across studies. Using theoretical arguments, we show that the methods differ most when covariate distributions differ across studies; using simulated data, we show that mvmeta gains precision but metacurve is more robust to model mis-specification. We then compare the two methods using data from the Emerging Risk Factors Collaboration on BMI, coronary heart disease events, and all-cause mortality (>80 cohorts, >18 000 events). For each outcome, we model BMI using fractional polynomials of degree 2 in each study, with adjustment for confounders. For metacurve, the powers defining the fractional polynomials may be study-specific or common across studies. For coronary heart disease, metacurve with common powers and mvmeta correctly identify a small increase in risk in the lowest levels of BMI, but metacurve with study-specific powers does not. For all-cause mortality, all methods identify a steep U-shape. The metacurve and mvmeta methods perform well in combining complex exposure-disease relationships across studies., (© 2018 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The validity and practical utility of observational medical research depends critically on good study design, excellent data quality, appropriate statistical methods and accurate interpretation of results. Statistical methodology has seen substantial development in recent times. Unfortunately, many of these methodological developments are ignored in practice. Consequently, design and analysis of observational studies often exhibit serious weaknesses. The lack of guidance on vital practical issues discourages many applied researchers from using more sophisticated and possibly more appropriate methods when analyzing observational studies. Furthermore, many analyses are conducted by researchers with a relatively weak statistical background and limited experience in using statistical methodology and software. Consequently, even 'standard' analyses reported in the medical literature are often flawed, casting doubt on their results and conclusions. An efficient way to help researchers to keep up with recent methodological developments is to develop guidance documents that are spread to the research community at large. These observations led to the initiation of the strengthening analytical thinking for observational studies (STRATOS) initiative, a large collaboration of experts in many different areas of biostatistical research. The objective of STRATOS is to provide accessible and accurate guidance in the design and analysis of observational studies. The guidance is intended for applied statisticians and other data analysts with varying levels of statistical education, experience and interests. In this article, we introduce the STRATOS initiative and its main aims, present the need for guidance documents and outline the planned approach and progress so far. We encourage other biostatisticians to become involved., (© 2014 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In observational studies, many continuous or categorical covariates may be related to an outcome. Various spline-based procedures or the multivariable fractional polynomial (MFP) procedure can be used to identify important variables and functional forms for continuous covariates. This is the main aim of an explanatory model, as opposed to a model only for prediction. The type of analysis often guides the complexity of the final model. Spline-based procedures and MFP have tuning parameters for choosing the required complexity. To compare model selection approaches, we perform a simulation study in the linear regression context based on a data structure intended to reflect realistic biomedical data. We vary the sample size, variance explained and complexity parameters for model selection. We consider 15 variables. A sample size of 200 (1000) and R(2)  = 0.2 (0.8) is the scenario with the smallest (largest) amount of information. For assessing performance, we consider prediction error, correct and incorrect inclusion of covariates, qualitative measures for judging selected functional forms and further novel criteria. From limited information, a suitable explanatory model cannot be obtained. Prediction performance from all types of models is similar. With a medium amount of information, MFP performs better than splines on several criteria. MFP better recovers simpler functions, whereas splines better recover more complex functions. For a large amount of information and no local structure, MFP and the spline procedures often select similar explanatory models., (Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In medical research, continuous variables are often converted into categorical variables by grouping values into two or more categories. We consider in detail issues pertaining to creating just two groups, a common approach in clinical research. We argue that the simplicity achieved is gained at a cost; dichotomization may create rather than avoid problems, notably a considerable loss of power and residual confounding. In addition, the use of a data-derived 'optimal' cutpoint leads to serious bias. We illustrate the impact of dichotomization of continuous predictor variables using as a detailed case study a randomized trial in primary biliary cirrhosis. Dichotomization of continuous data is unnecessary for statistical analysis and in particular should not be applied to explanatory variables in regression models., (Copyright 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

We consider modelling interaction between a categoric covariate T and a continuous covariate Z in a regression model. Here T represents the two treatment arms in a parallel-group clinical trial and Z is a prognostic factor which may influence response to treatment (known as a predictive factor). Generalization to more than two treatments is straightforward. The usual approach to analysis is to categorize Z into groups according to cutpoint(s) and to analyse the interaction in a model with main effects and multiplicative terms. The cutpoint approach raises several well-known and difficult issues for the analyst. We propose an alternative approach based on fractional polynomial (FP) modelling of Z in all patients and at each level of T. Other prognostic variables can also be incorporated by first constructing a multivariable adjustment model which may contain binary covariates and FP transformations of continuous covariates other than Z. The main step involves FP modelling of Z and testing equality of regression coefficients between treatment groups in an interaction model adjusted for other covariates. Extensive experience suggests that a two-term fractional polynomial (FP2) function may describe the effect of a prognostic factor on a survival outcome quite well. In a controlled trial, this FP2 function describes the prognostic effect averaged over the treatment groups. We refit this function in each treatment group to see if there are substantial differences between groups. Allowing different parameter values for the chosen FP2 function is flexible enough to detect such differences. Within the same algorithm we can also deal with the conceptually different cases of a predefined hypothesis of interaction or searching for interactions. We demonstrate the ability of the approach to detect and display treatment/covariate interactions in two examples from controlled trials in cancer.