4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons

Journal

BIOSTATISTICS
Volume 10, Issue 4, Pages 792-805

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxp032

Keywords

Bayesian hierarchical model; Between-trial heterogeneity; Equivalent prior sample method; Evidence consistency; Markov chain Monte Carlo; Mixed treatment comparison meta-analysis; Triangle inequality

Funding

  1. MRC [MC_U145079307, G0800800] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [MC_U145079307, G0800800] Funding Source: Medline
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_U145079307, G0800800] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

In mixed treatment comparison (MTC) meta-analysis, modeling the heterogeneity in between-trial variances across studies is a difficult problem because of the constraints on the variances inherited from the MTC structure. Starting from a consistent Bayesian hierarchical model for the mean treatment effects, we represent the variance configuration by a set of triangle inequalities on the standard deviations. We take the separation strategy (Barnard and others, 2000) to specify prior distributions for standard deviations and correlations separately. The covariance matrix of the latent treatment arm effects can be employed as a vehicle to load the triangular constraints, which in addition allows incorporation of prior beliefs about the correlations between treatment effects. The spherical parameterization based on Cholesky decomposition (Pinheiro and Bates, 1996) is used to generate a positive-definite matrix for the prior correlations in Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). Elicited prior information on correlations between treatment arms is introduced in the form of its equivalent data likelihood. The procedure is implemented in a MCMC framework and illustrated with example data sets from medical research practice.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available