Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2024 Jan;15(1):107-116.
doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1674. Epub 2023 Sep 28.

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses

Affiliations
Review

Use of multiple covariates in assessing treatment-effect modifiers: A methodological review of individual participant data meta-analyses

Peter J Godolphin et al. Res Synth Methods. 2024 Jan.

Abstract

Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised trials are considered a reliable way to assess participant-level treatment effect modifiers but may not make the best use of the available data. Traditionally, effect modifiers are explored one covariate at a time, which gives rise to the possibility that evidence of treatment-covariate interaction may be due to confounding from a different, related covariate. We aimed to evaluate current practice when estimating treatment-covariate interactions in IPD meta-analysis, specifically focusing on involvement of additional covariates in the models. We reviewed 100 IPD meta-analyses of randomised trials, published between 2015 and 2020, that assessed at least one treatment-covariate interaction. We identified four approaches to handling additional covariates: (1) Single interaction model (unadjusted): No additional covariates included (57/100 IPD meta-analyses); (2) Single interaction model (adjusted): Adjustment for the main effect of at least one additional covariate (35/100); (3) Multiple interactions model: Adjustment for at least one two-way interaction between treatment and an additional covariate (3/100); and (4) Three-way interaction model: Three-way interaction formed between treatment, the additional covariate and the potential effect modifier (5/100). IPD is not being utilised to its fullest extent. In an exemplar dataset, we demonstrate how these approaches lead to different conclusions. Researchers should adjust for additional covariates when estimating interactions in IPD meta-analysis providing they adjust their main effects, which is already widely recommended. Further, they should consider whether more complex approaches could provide better information on who might benefit most from treatments, improving patient choice and treatment policy and practice.

Keywords: confounding; effect modification; individual participant data; meta-analysis; participant-level covariate; treatment-covariate interaction.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study selection flow diagram. *Full-text articles were not assessed for eligibility once 100 eligible IPD meta-analyses had been identified IPD refers to individual participant data, RCT refers to randomised controlled trial. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 2
Figure 2
Fixed-effect meta-analysis of five trials for a continuous outcome using exemplar dataset. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
Figure 3
Figure 3
Differences in mean differences and interaction p-values for the investigation of effect modifiers Covariate 1 and Covariate 2 in the exemplar dataset, dependent on model choice. [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]

References

    1. Stewart LA, Tierney JF. To IPD or not to IPD? Advantages and disadvantages of systematic reviews using individual patient data. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:76–97. - PubMed
    1. Tierney JF, Vale CL, Riley R, et al. Individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: guidance on their use. PLoS Med. 2015;12:e1001855. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001855. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tierney JF, Riley RD, Tudur-Smith C, et al. In: Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis: A Handbook for Healthcare Research. Riley RD, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, editors. Wiley; 2021. Rationale for embarking on an IPD meta-analysis project; pp. 9–19.
    1. Riley RD, Fisher DJ. In: Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis: A Handbook for Healthcare Research. Riley RD, Tierney JF, Stewart LA, editors. Wiley; 2021. Using IPD meta-analysis to examine inter-actions between treatment effect and participant-level covariates; pp. 163–198.
    1. Fisher DJ, Copas AJ, Tierney JF, Parmar MKB. A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomised trials, and guidance for practitioners. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:949–967. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources