PubMed · 9494807
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Does the pill help spread HIV?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9494807/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
We propose a non-parametric multiple imputation scheme, NPMLE imputation, for the analysis of interval censored survival data. Features of the method are that it converts interval-censored data problems to complete data or right censored data problems to which many standard approaches can be used, and that measures of uncertainty are easily obtained. In addition to the event time of primary interest, there are frequently other auxiliary variables that are associated with the event time. For the goal of estimating the marginal survival distribution, these auxiliary variables may provide some additional information about the event time for the interval censored observations. We extend the imputation methods to incorporate information from auxiliary variables with potentially complex structures. To conduct the imputation, we use a working failure-time proportional hazards model to define an imputing risk set for each censored observation. The imputation schemes consist of using the data in the imputing risk sets to create an exact event time for each interval censored observation. In simulation studies we show that the use of multiple imputation methods can improve the efficiency of estimators and reduce the effect of missing visits when compared to simpler approaches. We apply the approach to cytomegalovirus shedding data from an AIDS clinical trial, in which CD4 count is the auxiliary variable.
Our objective was to illustrate the effects of using stricter standards for the quality of evidence used in decision analytic modeling. We created a simple 10-parameter probabilistic Markov model to estimate the cost-effectiveness of directly observed therapy (DOT) for individuals with newly diagnosed HIV infection. We evaluated quality of evidence on the basis of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force methods, which specified 3 separate domains: study design, internal validity, and external validity. We varied the evidence criteria for each of these domains individually and collectively. We used published research as a source of data only if the quality of the research met specified criteria; otherwise, we specified the parameter by randomly choosing a number from a range within which every number has the same probability of being selected (a uniform distribution). When we did not eliminate poor-quality evidence, DOT improved health 99% of the time and cost less than 100,000 dollars per additional quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) 85% of the time. The confidence ellipse was extremely narrow, suggesting high precision. When we used the most rigorous standards of evidence, we could use fewer than one fifth of the data sources, and DOT improved health only 49% of the time and cost less than 100,000 dollars per additional QALY only 4% of the time. The confidence ellipse became much larger, showing that the results were less precise. We conclude that the results of decision modeling may vary dramatically depending on the stringency of the criteria for selecting evidence to use in the model.
BACKGROUND: When multiple endpoints are of interest in evidence synthesis, a multivariate meta-analysis can jointly synthesise those endpoints and utilise their correlation. A multivariate random-effects meta-analysis must incorporate and estimate the between-study correlation (rhoB). METHODS: In this paper we assess maximum likelihood estimation of a general normal model and a generalised model for bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (BRMA). We consider two applied examples, one involving a diagnostic marker and the other a surrogate outcome. These motivate a simulation study where estimation properties from BRMA are compared with those from two separate univariate random-effects meta-analyses (URMAs), the traditional approach. RESULTS: The normal BRMA model estimates rhoB as -1 in both applied examples. Analytically we show this is due to the maximum likelihood estimator sensibly truncating the between-study covariance matrix on the boundary of its parameter space. Our simulations reveal this commonly occurs when the number of studies is small or the within-study variation is relatively large; it also causes upwardly biased between-study variance estimates, which are inflated to compensate for the restriction on rhoB. Importantly, this does not induce any systematic bias in the pooled estimates and produces conservative standard errors and mean-square errors. Furthermore, the normal BRMA is preferable to two normal URMAs; the mean-square error and standard error of pooled estimates is generally smaller in the BRMA, especially given data missing at random. For meta-analysis of proportions we then show that a generalised BRMA model is better still. This correctly uses a binomial rather than normal distribution, and produces better estimates than the normal BRMA and also two generalised URMAs; however the model may sometimes not converge due to difficulties estimating rhoB. CONCLUSION: A BRMA model offers numerous advantages over separate univariate synthesises; this paper highlights some of these benefits in both a normal and generalised modelling framework, and examines the estimation of between-study correlation to aid practitioners.