4.6 Article

Prior Choices of Between-Study Heterogeneity in Contemporary Bayesian Network Meta-analyses: an Empirical Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 1049-1057

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06357-1

关键词

Bayesian analysis; heterogeneity; network meta-analysis; prior distribution; sensitivity analysis

资金

  1. U.S. National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine [R01 LM012982]
  2. National Institutes of Health/National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences [UL1 TR001427]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Network meta-analysis (NMA) is commonly implemented in medical research using Bayesian methods. This study evaluated the impact of different priors for heterogeneity on NMA results, indicating the importance of reporting priors and conducting sensitivity analyses for NMAs with small sample sizes. Informative priors can lead to narrower credible intervals in NMAs with few studies.
Background Network meta-analysis (NMA) is a popular tool to compare multiple treatments in medical research. It is frequently implemented via Bayesian methods. The prior choice of between-study heterogeneity is critical in Bayesian NMAs. This study evaluates the impact of different priors for heterogeneity on NMA results. Methods We identified all NMAs with binary outcomes published in The BMJ, JAMA, and The Lancet during 2010-2018, and extracted information about their prior choices for heterogeneity. Our primary analyses focused on those with publicly available full data. We re-analyzed the NMAs using 3 commonly-used non-informative priors and empirical informative log-normal priors. We obtained the posterior median odds ratios and 95% credible intervals of all comparisons, assessed the correlation among different priors, and used Bland-Altman plots to evaluate their agreement. The kappa statistic was also used to evaluate the agreement among these priors regarding statistical significance. Results Among the selected Bayesian NMAs, 52.3% did not specify the prior choice for heterogeneity, and 84.1% did not provide rationales. We re-analyzed 19 NMAs with full data available, involving 894 studies, 173 treatments, and 395,429 patients. The correlation among posterior median (log) odds ratios using different priors were generally very strong for NMAs with over 20 studies. The informative priors produced substantially narrower credible intervals than non-informative priors, especially for NMAs with few studies. Bland-Altman plots and kappa statistics indicated strong overall agreement, but this was not always the case for a specific NMA. Conclusions Priors should be routinely reported in Bayesian NMAs. Sensitivity analyses are recommended to examine the impact of priors, especially for NMAs with relatively small sample sizes. Informative priors may produce substantially narrower credible intervals for such NMAs.

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

4.6
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