Literature DB >> 8981683

Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis.

J P Higgins1, A Whitehead.   

Abstract

There exists a variety of situations in which a random effects meta-analysis might be undertaken using a small number of clinical trials. A problem associated with small meta-analyses is estimating the heterogeneity between trials. To overcome this problem, information from other related studies may be incorporated into the meta-analysis. A Bayesian approach to this problem is presented using data from previous meta-analyses in the same therapeutic area to formulate a prior distribution for the heterogeneity. The treatment difference parameters are given non-informative priors. Further, related trials which compare one or other of the treatments of interest with a common third treatment are included in the model to improve inference on both the heterogeneity and the treatment difference. Two approaches to estimating relative efficacy are considered, namely a general parametric approach and a method explicit to binary data. The methodology is illustrated using data from 26 clinical trials which investigate the prevention of cirrhosis using beta-blockers and sclerotherapy. Both sources of external information lead to more precise posterior distributions for all parameters, in particular that representing heterogeneity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8981683     DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19961230)15:24<2733::AID-SIM562>3.0.CO;2-0

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


  144 in total

1.  Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.

Authors:  Fujian Song; Douglas G Altman; Anne-Marie Glenny; Jonathan J Deeks
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-03-01

Review 2.  Dressings and topical agents for treating pressure ulcers.

Authors:  Maggie J Westby; Jo C Dumville; Marta O Soares; Nikki Stubbs; Gill Norman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2017-06-22

Review 3.  Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment.

Authors:  Alex Sutton; A E Ades; Nicola Cooper; Keith Abrams
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.981

4.  Exact inference on the random-effects model for meta-analyses with few studies.

Authors:  Haben Michael; Suzanne Thornton; Minge Xie; Lu Tian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2019-04-13       Impact factor: 2.571

Review 5.  Network meta-analysis for comparing treatment effects of multiple interventions: an introduction.

Authors:  Ferrán Catalá-López; Aurelio Tobías; Chris Cameron; David Moher; Brian Hutton
Journal:  Rheumatol Int       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 2.631

6.  Network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: reporting the proper summaries.

Authors:  Jing Zhang; Bradley P Carlin; James D Neaton; Guoxing G Soon; Lei Nie; Robert Kane; Beth A Virnig; Haitao Chu
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 2.486

Review 7.  One topical fluoride (toothpastes, or mouthrinses, or gels, or varnishes) versus another for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.

Authors:  V C C Marinho; J P T Higgins; A Sheiham; S Logan
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2004

8.  On evidence cycles in network meta-analysis.

Authors:  Lifeng Lin; Haitao Chu; James S Hodges
Journal:  Stat Interface       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 0.582

9.  Meta-analysis of multi-arm trials using empirical logistic transform.

Authors:  Hathaikan Chootrakool; Jian Qing Shi
Journal:  Open Med Inform J       Date:  2008-06-06

10.  A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis.

Authors:  Julian P T Higgins; Simon G Thompson; David J Spiegelhalter
Journal:  J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.483

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.