Literature DB >> 10292450

The confidence profile method: a Bayesian method for assessing health technologies.

D M Eddy.   

Abstract

The Confidence Profile Method is a Bayesian method for adjusting and combining pieces of evidence to estimate parameters, such as the effect of health technologies on health outcomes. The information in each piece of evidence is captured in a likelihood function that gives the likelihood of the observed results of the evidence as a function of possible values of the parameter. A posterior distribution is calculated from Bayes formula as the product of the likelihood function and a prior distribution. Multiple pieces of evidence are incorporated by successive applications of Bayes' formula. Pieces of evidence are adjusted for biases to internal or external validity by modeling the biases and deriving "adjusted" likelihood functions that incorporate the models. Likelihood functions have been derived for one-, two- and multi-arm prospective studies; 2 x 2, 2 x n and matched case-control studies, and cross-sectional studies. Biases that can be incorporated in likelihood functions include crossover in controlled trials, error in measurement outcomes, patient selection biases, differences in technologies, and differences in length of follow-up. Effect measures include differences of rates, ratios of rates, and odds ratios. The elements of the method are illustrated with an analysis of the effect of a thrombolytic agent on the difference in probability of 1-year survival after a heart attack.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 10292450     DOI: 10.1287/opre.37.2.210

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Res        ISSN: 0030-364X            Impact factor:   3.310


  6 in total

1.  Bayesian communication: a clinically significant paradigm for electronic publication.

Authors:  H P Lehmann; S N Goodman
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2000 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Policy implications of adjusting randomized trial data for economic evaluations: a demonstration from the ASCUS-LSIL Triage Study.

Authors:  Nicole G Campos; Philip E Castle; Mark Schiffman; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-12-06       Impact factor: 2.583

3.  Accounting for biases when linking empirical studies and simulation models.

Authors:  Jeremy D Goldhaber-Fiebert
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2012 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Adjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis: combining data-based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment.

Authors:  K M Rhodes; J Savović; R Elbers; H E Jones; J P T Higgins; J A C Sterne; N J Welton; R M Turner
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2019-07-01       Impact factor: 2.483

5.  Reweighting Randomized Controlled Trial Evidence to Better Reflect Real Life - A Case Study of the Innovative Medicines Initiative.

Authors:  Michael Happich; Alan Brnabic; Douglas Faries; Keith Abrams; Katherine B Winfree; Allicia Girvan; Pall Jonsson; Joseph Johnston; Mark Belger
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2020-05-30       Impact factor: 6.875

6.  Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Frailty Assessment in Older Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery.

Authors:  Zhe Li; Steven Habbous; Jenny Thain; Daniel E Hall; A Dave Nagpal; Rodrigo Bagur; Bob Kiaii; Ava John-Baptiste
Journal:  Can J Cardiol       Date:  2019-10-12       Impact factor: 5.223

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.