4.5 Article

A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons

期刊

RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 6-22

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1153

关键词

Bayesian hierarchical model; Markov chain Monte Carlo; missingness mechanism; network meta-analysis

资金

  1. Eli Lilly and Company Research Award Program
  2. NIAID [AI103012]
  3. NIDCR [R03DE024750]
  4. NCI [P30CA077598]
  5. NIMHD [U54-MD008620]
  6. US NCI [1R01-CA157458-01A1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bayesian statistical approaches to mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are becoming more popular because of their flexibility and interpretability. Many randomized clinical trials report multiple outcomes with possible inherent correlations. Moreover, MTC data are typically sparse (although richer than standard meta-analysis, comparing only two treatments), and researchers often choose study arms based upon which treatments emerge as superior in previous trials. In this paper, we summarize existing hierarchical Bayesian methods for MTCs with a single outcome and introduce novel Bayesian approaches for multiple outcomes simultaneously, rather than in separate MTC analyses. We do this by incorporating partially observed data and its correlation structure between outcomes through contrast-based and arm-based parameterizations that consider any unobserved treatment arms as missing data to be imputed. We also extend the model to apply to all types of generalized linear model outcomes, such as count or continuous responses. We offer a simulation study under various missingness mechanisms (e.g., missing completely at random, missing at random, and missing not at random) providing evidence that our models outperform existing models in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage probability then illustrate our methods with a real MTC dataset. We close with a discussion of our results, several contentious issues in MTC analysis, and a few avenues for future methodological development. Copyright (C) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.5
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