Literature DB >> 32996196

A bias-corrected meta-analysis model for combining, studies of different types and quality.

Pablo Emilio Verde1.   

Abstract

Public health researchers may have to decide whether to perform a meta-analysis including only high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or whether to include a mixture of all the available evidence, namely RCTs of varying quality and observational studies (OS). The main hurdle when combining disparate evidence in a meta-analysis is that we are not only combining results of interest but we are also combining multiple biases. Therefore, commonly applied meta-analysis methods may lead to misleading conclusions. In this paper, we present a new Bayesian hierarchical model, called the bias-corrected (BC) meta-analysis model, to combine different study types in meta-analysis. This model is based on a mixture of two random effects distributions, where the first component corresponds to the model of interest and the second component to the hidden bias structure. In this way, the resulting model of interest is adjusted by the internal validity bias of the studies included in a systematic review. We illustrate the BC model with two meta-analyses: The first one combines RCTs and OS to assess effectiveness of vaccination to prevent invasive pneumococcal disease. The second one investigates the effectiveness of stem cell treatment in heart disease patients. Our results show that ignoring internal validity bias in a meta-analysis may lead to misleading conclusions. However, if a meta-analysis model contemplates a bias adjustment, then RCTs results may increase their precision by including OS in the analysis. The BC model has been implemented in JAGS and R, which facilitate its application in practice.
© 2020 The Authors. Biometrical Journal published by Wiley-VCH GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bayesian hierarchical models; comparative effectiveness methods; conflict of evidence; generalized evidence synthesis; meta-analysis

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32996196     DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201900376

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biom J        ISSN: 0323-3847            Impact factor:   2.207


  4 in total

1.  Combining individual patient data from randomized and non-randomized studies to predict real-world effectiveness of interventions.

Authors:  Michael Seo; Thomas Pa Debray; Yann Ruffieux; Sandro Gsteiger; Sylwia Bujkiewicz; Axel Finckh; Matthias Egger; Orestis Efthimiou
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.494

2.  Sensitivity and identification quantification by a relative latent model complexity perturbation in Bayesian meta-analysis.

Authors:  Małgorzata Roos; Sona Hunanyan; Haakon Bakka; Håvard Rue
Journal:  Biom J       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 1.715

3.  A robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model for consideration of uncertainty about bias terms in evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Ivette Raices Cruz; Matthias C M Troffaes; Johan Lindström; Ullrika Sahlin
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2022-04-29       Impact factor: 2.497

4.  EA3: A softmax algorithm for evidence appraisal aggregation.

Authors:  Francesco De Pretis; Jürgen Landes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.