Literature DB >> 11122501

Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening.

T C Prevost1, K R Abrams, D R Jones.   

Abstract

Evidence regarding the potential benefits of a particular health care intervention is often available from a variety of disparate sources. However, formal synthesis of such evidence has traditionally concentrated almost exclusively on that derived from randomized studies, although for a range of conditions the randomized evidence will be less than adequate due to economic, organizational or ethical considerations. In such situations a formal synthesis of the evidence that is available from observational studies can be valuable whilst awaiting higher quality evidence from randomized trials. Consideration of randomized studies alone may be appropriate when assessing the efficacy of an intervention, but assessment of the effectiveness of such an intervention within a more general target population may be improved by consideration of evidence from non-randomized studies as well. Standard meta-analysis methods may allow for both within- and between-study heterogeneity; however when multiple sources of evidence are considered an extra level of complexity is introduced, namely study type. One possible solution to the problem of making inferences, particularly regarding an overall population effect, in such situations is to model the heterogeneity, both quantitative and qualitative, using a Bayesian hierarchical model. The hierarchical nature of such models specifically allows for the quantitative within and between sources of heterogeneity, whilst the Bayesian approach can accommodate a priori beliefs regarding qualitative differences between the various sources of evidence. The use of such methods in practice is illustrated in the context of screening for breast cancer; in this example evidence is available from both randomized clinical trials and observational studies. A particular appeal of a Bayesian approach for this type of problem lies in the prediction of future benefits likely to be observed in a target population. This approach to health service monitoring in general is discussed. Copyright 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11122501     DOI: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3359::aid-sim710>3.0.co;2-n

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  33 in total

1.  The use of propensity scores to assess the generalizability of results from randomized trials.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Stephen R Cole; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2001-04-01       Impact factor: 2.483

Review 2.  Harms of off-label erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for critically ill people.

Authors:  Bita Mesgarpour; Benedikt H Heidinger; Dominik Roth; Susanne Schmitz; Cathal D Walsh; Harald Herkner
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-08-25

3.  Bayesian Hierarchical Models for Meta-Analysis of Quality-of-Life Outcomes: An Application in Multimorbidity.

Authors:  Susanne Schmitz; Tatjana T Makovski; Roisin Adams; Marjan van den Akker; Saverio Stranges; Maurice P Zeegers
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Early major complications after bariatric surgery in the USA, 2003-2014: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  S-H Chang; N L B Freeman; J A Lee; C R T Stoll; A J Calhoun; J C Eagon; G A Colditz
Journal:  Obes Rev       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 9.213

5.  Generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations: Design and analysis possibilities.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Benjamin Ackerman; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  Res Soc Work Pract       Date:  2017-07-27

6.  Data integration in genetics and genomics: methods and challenges.

Authors:  Jemila S Hamid; Pingzhao Hu; Nicole M Roslin; Vicki Ling; Celia M T Greenwood; Joseph Beyene
Journal:  Hum Genomics Proteomics       Date:  2009-01-12

7.  The importance of adjusting for potential confounders in Bayesian hierarchical models synthesising evidence from randomised and non-randomised studies: an application comparing treatments for abdominal aortic aneurysms.

Authors:  C Elizabeth McCarron; Eleanor M Pullenayegum; Lehana Thabane; Ron Goeree; Jean-Eric Tarride
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-07-09       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 8.  Safety of off-label erythropoiesis stimulating agents in critically ill patients: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bita Mesgarpour; Benedikt H Heidinger; Michael Schwameis; Calvin Kienbacher; Cathal Walsh; Susanne Schmitz; Harald Herkner
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2013-08-09       Impact factor: 17.440

Review 9.  Cannabinoids for epilepsy.

Authors:  David Gloss; Barbara Vickrey
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2014-03-05

10.  Assessing the generalizability of randomized trial results to target populations.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Stuart; Catherine P Bradshaw; Philip J Leaf
Journal:  Prev Sci       Date:  2015-04
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.