scholarly journals Multilevel Meta-Analysis of Individual Participant Data of Single-Case Experimental Designs: One-Stage versus Two-Stage Methods

Author(s):  
Lies Declercq ◽  
Laleh Jamshidi ◽  
Belén Fernández Castilla ◽  
Mariola Moeyaert ◽  
S. Natasha Beretvas ◽  
...  
PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. e60650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas P. A. Debray ◽  
Karel G. M. Moons ◽  
Ghada Mohammed Abdallah Abo-Zaid ◽  
Hendrik Koffijberg ◽  
Richard David Riley

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (10) ◽  
pp. 2885-2905 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D Riley ◽  
Joie Ensor ◽  
Dan Jackson ◽  
Danielle L Burke

Many meta-analysis models contain multiple parameters, for example due to multiple outcomes, multiple treatments or multiple regression coefficients. In particular, meta-regression models may contain multiple study-level covariates, and one-stage individual participant data meta-analysis models may contain multiple patient-level covariates and interactions. Here, we propose how to derive percentage study weights for such situations, in order to reveal the (otherwise hidden) contribution of each study toward the parameter estimates of interest. We assume that studies are independent, and utilise a decomposition of Fisher’s information matrix to decompose the total variance matrix of parameter estimates into study-specific contributions, from which percentage weights are derived. This approach generalises how percentage weights are calculated in a traditional, single parameter meta-analysis model. Application is made to one- and two-stage individual participant data meta-analyses, meta-regression and network (multivariate) meta-analysis of multiple treatments. These reveal percentage study weights toward clinically important estimates, such as summary treatment effects and treatment-covariate interactions, and are especially useful when some studies are potential outliers or at high risk of bias. We also derive percentage study weights toward methodologically interesting measures, such as the magnitude of ecological bias (difference between within-study and across-study associations) and the amount of inconsistency (difference between direct and indirect evidence in a network meta-analysis).


2020 ◽  
Vol 88 (9) ◽  
pp. 829-843 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Flückiger ◽  
Julian Rubel ◽  
A. C. Del Re ◽  
Adam O. Horvath ◽  
Bruce E. Wampold ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document