Literature DB >> 21878446

Bayesian approaches for comparative effectiveness research.

Donald A Berry1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A hallmark of comparative effectiveness research is the analysis of all the available evidence from different studies addressing a given question of medical risk versus benefit. The Bayesian statistical approach is ideally suited for such investigations because it is inherently synthetic and because it is philosophically uninhibited regarding the ability to analyze all the available evidence.
PURPOSE: To consider a variety of comparative effectiveness research settings and show how the Bayesian approach applies.
METHODS: The Bayesian approach is described as it has been applied to the comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and mammographic screening, in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, in comparisons of patient outcomes data from different sources, and in designing adaptive clinical trials to support the development of 'personalized medicine.'
RESULTS: Bayesian methods allow for continued learning as data accrue and for cumulating meta-analyses and the comparison of heterogeneous studies. Bayesian methods enable predictive probability distributions of the results of future studies. LIMITATIONS: Bayesian posterior distributions are subject to potential bias - in the selection of 'available' evidence and in the choice of a likelihood model. Sensitivity analyses help to control this bias.
CONCLUSIONS: The Bayesian approach has much to offer comparative effectiveness research. It provides a mechanism for synthesizing various sources of information and for updating knowledge in an online fashion as evidence accumulates.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21878446      PMCID: PMC4314707          DOI: 10.1177/1740774511417470

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  17 in total

1.  I-SPY 2: an adaptive breast cancer trial design in the setting of neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

Authors:  A D Barker; C C Sigman; G J Kelloff; N M Hylton; D A Berry; L J Esserman
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2009-05-13       Impact factor: 6.875

2.  Bayesian meta-analyses for comparative effectiveness and informing coverage decisions.

Authors:  Scott M Berry; K Jack Ishak; Bryan R Luce; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 3.  Benefits and risks of screening mammography for women in their forties: a statistical appraisal.

Authors:  D A Berry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1998-10-07       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Tamoxifen for early breast cancer: an overview of the randomised trials. Early Breast Cancer Trialists' Collaborative Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1998-05-16       Impact factor: 79.321

5.  A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials.

Authors:  D A Berry
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-08       Impact factor: 2.373

6.  Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway.

Authors:  Mette Kalager; Marvin Zelen; Frøydis Langmark; Hans-Olov Adami
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Role of detection method in predicting breast cancer survival: analysis of randomized screening trials.

Authors:  Yu Shen; Ying Yang; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Mark F Munsell; Anthony B Miller; Donald A Berry
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-08-17       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  The Will Rogers phenomenon. Stage migration and new diagnostic techniques as a source of misleading statistics for survival in cancer.

Authors:  A R Feinstein; D M Sosin; C K Wells
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1985-06-20       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 10.  Systematic review: implantable cardioverter defibrillators for adults with left ventricular systolic dysfunction.

Authors:  Justin A Ezekowitz; Brian H Rowe; Donna M Dryden; Nicola Hooton; Ben Vandermeer; Carol Spooner; Finlay A McAlister
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-08-21       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  4 in total

1.  Bayesian hierarchical modeling of patient subpopulations: efficient designs of Phase II oncology clinical trials.

Authors:  Scott M Berry; Kristine R Broglio; Susan Groshen; Donald A Berry
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 2.486

2.  Using Adaptive Designs to Avoid Selecting the Wrong Arms in Multiarm Comparative Effectiveness Trials.

Authors:  Byron J Gajewski; Jeffrey Statland; Richard Barohn
Journal:  Stat Biopharm Res       Date:  2019-06-26       Impact factor: 1.452

3.  Mix and match. A simulation study on the impact of mixed-treatment comparison methods on health-economic outcomes.

Authors:  Pepijn Vemer; Maiwenn J Al; Mark Oppe; Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Efficacy and safety of nivolumab in Japanese patients with first recurrence of glioblastoma: an open-label, non-comparative study.

Authors:  Tomokazu Aoki; Naoki Kagawa; Kazuhiko Sugiyama; Toshihiko Wakabayashi; Yoshiki Arakawa; Shigeru Yamaguchi; Shota Tanaka; Eiichi Ishikawa; Yoshihiro Muragaki; Motoo Nagane; Mitsutoshi Nakada; Satoshi Suehiro; Nobuhiro Hata; Junichiro Kuroda; Yoshitaka Narita; Yukihiko Sonoda; Yasuo Iwadate; Manabu Natsumeda; Yoichi Nakazato; Hironobu Minami; Yuki Hirata; Shunsuke Hagihara; Ryo Nishikawa
Journal:  Int J Clin Oncol       Date:  2021-09-29       Impact factor: 3.402

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.