4.4 Article

Reducing and meta-analysing estimates from distributed lag non-linear models

期刊

BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-13-1

关键词

Distributed lag models; Multivariate meta-analysis; Two-stage analysis; Time series

资金

  1. Methodology Research Fellowship from Medical Research Council UK [G1002296]
  2. Medical Research Council UK [G0701030]
  3. Medical Research Council [G0701030, G1002296] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. MRC [G0701030, G1002296] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The two-stage time series design represents a powerful analytical tool in environmental epidemiology. Recently, models for both stages have been extended with the development of distributed lag non-linear models (DLNMs), a methodology for investigating simultaneously non-linear and lagged relationships, and multivariate meta-analysis, a methodology to pool estimates of multi-parameter associations. However, the application of both methods in two-stage analyses is prevented by the high-dimensional definition of DLNMs. Methods: In this contribution we propose a method to synthesize DLNMs to simpler summaries, expressed by a reduced set of parameters of one-dimensional functions, which are compatible with current multivariate meta-analytical techniques. The methodology and modelling framework are implemented in R through the packages dlnm and mvmeta. Results: As an illustrative application, the method is adopted for the two-stage time series analysis of temperature-mortality associations using data from 10 regions in England and Wales. R code and data are available as supplementary online material. Discussion and Conclusions: The methodology proposed here extends the use of DLNMs in two-stage analyses, obtaining meta-analytical estimates of easily interpretable summaries from complex non-linear and delayed associations. The approach relaxes the assumptions and avoids simplifications required by simpler modelling approaches.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据