Random effects meta-analysis model is an important tool for integrating results from multiple independent studies. However, the standard model is based on the assumption of normal distributions for both random effects and within-study errors, making it susceptible to outlying studies. Although robust modeling using the t distribution is an appealing idea, the existing work, that explores the use of the t distribution only for random effects, involves complicated numerical integration and numerical optimization. In this article, a novel robust meta-analysis model using the t distribution is proposed (tMeta). The novelty is that the marginal distribution of the effect size in tMeta follows the t distribution, enabling that tMeta can simultaneously accommodate and detect outlying studies in a simple and adaptive manner. A simple and fast EM-type algorithm is developed for maximum likelihood estimation. Due to the mathematical tractability of the t distribution, tMeta frees from numerical integration and allows for efficient optimization. Experiments on real data demonstrate that tMeta is compared favorably with related competitors in situations involving mild outliers. Moreover, in the presence of gross outliers, while related competitors may fail, tMeta continues to perform consistently and robustly.

Several methods have been proposed for the synthesis of continuous outcomes reported on different scales, including the Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) and the Ratio of Means (RoM). SMDs can be formed by dividing the study mean treatment effect either by a study-specific (Study-SMD) or a scale-specific (Scale-SMD) standard deviation (SD). We compared the performance of RoM to the different standardisation methods with and without meta-regression (MR) on baseline severity, in a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) of 14 treatments for depression, reported on five different scales. There was substantial between-study variation in the SDs reported on the same scale. Based on the Deviance Information Criterion, RoM was preferred as having better model fit than the SMD models. Model fit for SMD models was not improved with meta-regression. Percentage shrinkage was used as a scale-independent measure with higher % shrinkage indicating lower heterogeneity. Heterogeneity was lowest for RoM (20.5% shrinkage), then Scale-SMD (18.2% shrinkage), and highest for Study-SMD (16.7% shrinkage). Model choice impacted which treatment was estimated to be most effective. However, all models picked out the same three highest-ranked treatments using the GRADE criteria. Alongside other indicators, higher shrinkage of RoM models suggests that treatments for depression act multiplicatively rather than additively. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings extend to Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcomes used in other application areas. Where treatment effects are additive, we recommend using Scale-SMD for standardisation to avoid the additional heterogeneity introduced by Study-SMD.

Systematic reviews are essential for evidence-based health care, but conducting them is time- and resource-consuming. To date, efforts have been made to accelerate and (semi-)automate various steps of systematic reviews through the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and the emergence of large language models (LLMs) promises further opportunities. One crucial but complex task within systematic review conduct is assessing the risk of bias (RoB) of included studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to test the LLM Claude 2 for RoB assessment of 100 randomized controlled trials, published in English language from 2013 onwards, using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool (‘RoB 2’; involving judgements for five specific domains and an overall judgement). We assessed the agreement of RoB judgements by Claude with human judgements published in Cochrane reviews. The observed agreement between Claude and Cochrane authors ranged from 41% for the overall judgement to 71% for domain 4 (‘outcome measurement’). Cohen’s κ was lowest for domain 5 (‘selective reporting’; 0.10 (95% confidence interval (CI): −0.10–0.31)) and highest for domain 3 (‘missing data’; 0.31 (95% CI: 0.10–0.52)), indicating slight to fair agreement. Fair agreement was found for the overall judgement (Cohen’s κ: 0.22 (95% CI: 0.06–0.38)). Sensitivity analyses using alternative prompting techniques or the more recent version Claude 3 did not result in substantial changes. Currently, Claude’s RoB 2 judgements cannot replace human RoB assessment. However, the potential of LLMs to support RoB assessment should be further explored.

Unanchored population-adjusted indirect comparisons (PAICs) such as matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC) attracted a significant attention in the health technology assessment field in recent years. These methods allow for indirect comparisons by balancing different patient characteristics in single-arm studies in the case where individual patient-level data are only available for one study. However, the validity of findings from unanchored MAIC/STC analyses is frequently questioned by decision makers, due to the assumption that all potential prognostic factors and effect modifiers are accounted for. Addressing this critical concern, we introduce a sensitivity analysis algorithm for unanchored PAICs by extending quantitative bias analysis techniques traditionally used in epidemiology. Our proposed sensitivity analysis involves simulating important covariates that were not reported by the comparator study when conducting unanchored STC and enables the formal evaluating of the impact of unmeasured confounding in a quantitative manner without additional assumptions. We demonstrate the practical application of this method through a real-world case study of metastatic colorectal cancer, highlighting its utility in enhancing the robustness and credibility of unanchored PAIC results. Our findings emphasise the necessity of formal quantitative sensitivity analysis in interpreting unanchored PAIC results, as it quantifies the robustness of conclusions regarding potential unmeasured confounders and supports more robust, reliable, and informative decision-making in healthcare.

In prognosis studies with time-to-event outcomes, the survivals of groups with high/low biomarker expression are often estimated by the Kaplan–Meier method, and the difference between groups is measured by the hazard ratios (HRs). Since the high/low expressions are usually determined by study-specific cutoff values, synthesizing only HRs for summarizing the prognostic capacity of a biomarker brings heterogeneity in the meta-analysis. The time-dependent summary receiver operating characteristics (SROC) curve was proposed as a cutoff-free summary of the prognostic capacity, extended from the SROC curve in meta-analysis of diagnostic studies. However, estimates of the time-dependent SROC curve may be threatened by reporting bias in that studies with significant outcomes, such as HRs, are more likely to be published and selected in meta-analyses. Under this conjecture, this paper proposes a sensitivity analysis method for quantifying and adjusting reporting bias on the time-dependent SROC curve. We model the publication process determined by the significance of the HRs and introduce a sensitivity analysis method based on the conditional likelihood constrained by some expected proportions of published studies. Simulation studies showed that the proposed method could reduce reporting bias given the correctly-specified marginal selection probability. The proposed method is illustrated on the real-world meta-analysis of Ki67 for breast cancer.

The treatment recommendation based on a network meta-analysis (NMA) is usually the single treatment with the highest expected value (EV) on an evaluative function. We explore approaches that recommend multiple treatments and that penalise uncertainty, making them suitable for risk-averse decision-makers. We introduce loss-adjusted EV (LaEV) and compare it to GRADE and three probability-based rankings. We define properties of a valid ranking under uncertainty and other desirable properties of ranking systems. A two-stage process is proposed: the first identifies treatments superior to the reference treatment; the second identifies those that are also within a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the best treatment. Decision rules and ranking systems are compared on stylised examples and 10 NMAs used in NICE (National Institute of Health and Care Excellence) guidelines. Only LaEV reliably delivers valid rankings under uncertainty and has all the desirable properties. In 10 NMAs comparing between 5 and 41 treatments, an EV decision maker would recommend 4–14 treatments, and LaEV 0–3 (median 2) fewer. GRADE rules give rise to anomalies, and, like the probability-based rankings, the number of treatments recommended depends on arbitrary probability cutoffs. Among treatments that are superior to the reference, GRADE privileges the more uncertain ones, and in 3/10 cases, GRADE failed to recommend the treatment with the highest EV and LaEV. A two-stage approach based on MCID ensures that EV- and LaEV-based rules recommend a clinically appropriate number of treatments. For a risk-averse decision maker, LaEV is conservative, simple to implement, and has an independent theoretical foundation.

Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC) has been increasingly applied in health technology assessments (HTA). By reweighting subjects from a trial with individual participant data (IPD) to match the summary statistics of covariates in another trial with aggregate data (AgD), MAIC enables a comparison of the interventions for the AgD trial population. However, when there are imbalances in effect modifiers with different magnitudes of modification across treatments, contradictory conclusions may arise if MAIC is performed with the IPD and AgD swapped between trials. This can lead to the “MAIC paradox,” where different entities reach opposing conclusions about which treatment is more effective, despite analyzing the same data. In this paper, we use synthetic data to illustrate this paradox and emphasize the importance of clearly defining the target population in HTA submissions. Additionally, we recommend making de-identified IPD available to HTA agencies, enabling further indirect comparisons that better reflect the overall population represented by both IPD and AgD trials, as well as other relevant target populations for policy decisions. This would help ensure more accurate and consistent assessments of comparative effectiveness.

A fundamental pillar of science is the estimation of the effect size of associations. However, this task is sometimes difficult and error-prone. To facilitate this process, the R package metaConvert automatically calculates and flexibly converts multiple effect size measures. It applies more than 120 formulas to convert any relevant input data into Cohen’s d, Hedges’ g, mean difference, odds ratio, risk ratio, incidence rate ratio, correlation coefficient, Fisher’s r-to-z transformed correlation coefficient, variability ratio, coefficient of variation ratio, or number needed to treat. Researchers unfamiliar with R can use this software through a browser-based graphical interface (https://metaconvert.org/). We hope this suite will help researchers in the life sciences and other disciplines estimate and convert effect sizes more easily and accurately.