BMC Medical Research Methodology | 2021

Multivariate meta-analysis of critical care meta-analyses: a meta-epidemiological study

 

Abstract


Background Meta-analyses typically consider multiple outcomes and report univariate effect sizes considered as independent. Multivariate meta-analysis (MVMA) incorporates outcome correlation and synthesises direct evidence and related outcome estimates within a single analysis. In a series of meta-analyses from the critically ill literature, the current study contrasts multiple univariate effect estimates and their precision with those derived from MVMA. Methods A previous meta-epidemiological study was used to identify meta-analyses with either one or two secondary outcomes providing sufficient detail to structure bivariate or tri-variate MVMA, with mortality as primary outcome. Analysis was performed using a random effects model for both odds ratio (OR) and risk ratio (RR); borrowing of strength (BoS) between multivariate outcome estimates was reported. Estimate comparisons, β coefficients, standard errors (SE) and confidence interval (CI) width, univariate versus multivariate, were performed using Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC). Results In bivariate meta-analyses, for OR ( n \u2009=\u200949) and RR ( n \u2009=\u200948), there was substantial concordance (≥\u20090.69) between estimates; but this was less so for tri-variate meta-analyses for both OR ( n \u2009=\u200925;\u2009≥\u20090.38) and RR (≥\u2009-0.10; n \u2009=\u200922). A variable change in the multivariate precision of primary mortality outcome estimates compared with univariate was present for both bivariate and tri-variate meta-analyses and for metrics. For second outcomes, precision tended to decrease and CI width increase for bivariate meta-analyses, but was variable in the tri-variate. For third outcomes, precision increased and CI width decreased. In bivariate meta-analyses, OR coefficient significance reversal, univariate versus MVMA, occurred once for mortality and 6 cases for second outcomes. RR coefficient significance reversal occurred in 4 cases; 2 were discordant with OR. For tri-variate OR meta-analyses reversal of coefficient estimate significance occurred in two cases for mortality, nine cases for second and 7 cases for third outcomes. In RR meta-analyses significance reversals occurred for mortality in 2 cases, 6 cases for second and 3 cases for third; there were 7 discordances with OR. BoS was greater in trivariate MVMAs compared with bivariate and for OR versus RR. Conclusions MVMA would appear to be the preferred solution to multiple univariate analyses; parameter significance changes may occur. Analytic metric appears to be a determinant.

Volume 21
Pages None
DOI 10.1186/s12874-021-01336-4
Language English
Journal BMC Medical Research Methodology

Full Text