Literature DB >> 32510638

A Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis of prevalence data.

Lianne Siegel1, Kyle Rudser1, Siobhan Sutcliffe2, Alayne Markland3,4, Linda Brubaker5, Sheila Gahagan6, Ann E Stapleton7, Haitao Chu1.   

Abstract

When conducting a meta-analysis involving prevalence data for an outcome with several subtypes, each of them is typically analyzed separately using a univariate meta-analysis model. Recently, multivariate meta-analysis models have been shown to correspond to a decrease in bias and variance for multiple correlated outcomes compared with univariate meta-analysis, when some studies only report a subset of the outcomes. In this article, we propose a novel Bayesian multivariate random effects model to account for the natural constraint that the prevalence of any given subtype cannot be larger than that of the overall prevalence. Extensive simulation studies show that this new model can reduce bias and variance when estimating subtype prevalences in the presence of missing data, compared with standard univariate and multivariate random effects models. The data from a rapid review on occupation and lower urinary tract symptoms by the Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Research Consortium are analyzed as a case study to estimate the prevalence of urinary incontinence and several incontinence subtypes among women in suspected high risk work environments.
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian methods; meta-analysis; missing data; prevalence; sensitivity analysis; urinary incontinence

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32510638      PMCID: PMC7571488          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8593

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


  36 in total

1.  Combining multiple outcome measures in a meta-analysis: an application.

Authors:  Lidia R Arends; Zoltán Vokó; Theo Stijnen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2003-04-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 2.  GetReal in network meta-analysis: a review of the methodology.

Authors:  Orestis Efthimiou; Thomas P A Debray; Gert van Valkenhoef; Sven Trelle; Klea Panayidou; Karel G M Moons; Johannes B Reitsma; Aijing Shang; Georgia Salanti
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2016-01-11       Impact factor: 5.273

3.  Meta-analysis for diagnostic accuracy studies: a new statistical model using beta-binomial distributions and bivariate copulas.

Authors:  Oliver Kuss; Annika Hoyer; Alexander Solms
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-07-19       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Meta-analysis in medical research.

Authors:  A B Haidich
Journal:  Hippokratia       Date:  2010-12       Impact factor: 0.471

5.  A Bayesian hierarchical model for network meta-analysis of multiple diagnostic tests.

Authors:  Xiaoye Ma; Qinshu Lian; Haitao Chu; Joseph G Ibrahim; Yong Chen
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2018-01-01       Impact factor: 5.899

6.  A bivariate approach to meta-analysis.

Authors:  H C Van Houwelingen; K H Zwinderman; T Stijnen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1993-12-30       Impact factor: 2.373

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

Authors:  Hwanhee Hong; Haitao Chu; Jing Zhang; Bradley P Carlin
Journal:  Res Synth Methods       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 5.273

8.  The Prevention of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms (PLUS) Research Consortium: A Transdisciplinary Approach Toward Promoting Bladder Health and Preventing Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms in Women Across the Life Course.

Authors:  Bernard L Harlow; Tamara G Bavendam; Mary H Palmer; Linda Brubaker; Kathryn L Burgio; Emily S Lukacz; Janis M Miller; Elizabeth R Mueller; Diane K Newman; Leslie M Rickey; Siobhan Sutcliffe; Denise Simons-Morton
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-09-15       Impact factor: 2.681

9.  Multivariate meta-analysis: potential and promise.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Richard Riley; Ian R White
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-01-26       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Systematically missing confounders in individual participant data meta-analysis of observational cohort studies.

Authors:  Dan Jackson; Ian White; J B Kostis; A C Wilson; A R Folsom; K Wu; L Chambless; M Benderly; U Goldbourt; J Willeit; S Kiechl; J W G Yarnell; P M Sweetnam; P C Elwood; M Cushman; B M Psaty; R P Tracy; A Tybjaerg-Hansen; F Haverkate; M P M de Maat; S G Thompson; F G R Fowkes; A J Lee; F B Smith; V Salomaa; K Harald; V Rasi; E Vahtera; P Jousilahti; R D'Agostino; W B Kannel; P W F Wilson; G Tofler; D Levy; R Marchioli; F Valagussa; A Rosengren; L Wilhelmsen; G Lappas; H Eriksson; P Cremer; D Nagel; J D Curb; B Rodriguez; K Yano; J T Salonen; K Nyyssönen; T-P Tuomainen; B Hedblad; G Engström; G Berglund; H Loewel; W Koenig; H W Hense; T W Meade; J A Cooper; B De Stavola; C Knottenbelt; G J Miller; J A Cooper; K A Bauer; R D Rosenberg; S Sato; A Kitamura; Y Naito; H Iso; V Salomaa; K Harald; V Rasi; E Vahtera; P Jousilahti; T Palosuo; P Ducimetiere; P Amouyel; D Arveiler; A E Evans; J Ferrieres; I Juhan-Vague; A Bingham; H Schulte; G Assmann; B Cantin; B Lamarche; J-P Despres; G R Dagenais; H Tunstall-Pedoe; G D O Lowe; M Woodward; Y Ben-Shlomo; G Davey Smith; V Palmieri; J L Yeh; T W Meade; A Rudnicka; P Brennan; C Knottenbelt; J A Cooper; P Ridker; F Rodeghiero; A Tosetto; J Shepherd; G D O Lowe; I Ford; M Robertson; E Brunner; M Shipley; E J M Feskens; E Di Angelantonio; S Kaptoge; S Lewington; G D O Lowe; N Sarwar; S G Thompson; M Walker; S Watson; I R White; A M Wood; J Danesh
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-04-15       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  1 in total

1.  Arcsine-based transformations for meta-analysis of proportions: Pros, cons, and alternatives.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Chang Xu
Journal:  Health Sci Rep       Date:  2020-07-27
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.