Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons

被引:62
|
作者
Hong, Hwanhee [1 ]
Carlin, Bradley P. [1 ]
Shamliyan, Tatyana A. [2 ]
Wyman, Jean F. [2 ]
Ramakrishnan, Rema [2 ]
Sainfort, Francois [2 ]
Kane, Robert L. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Minnesota, Div Biostat, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
[2] Univ Minnesota, Div Hlth Policy & Management, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA
关键词
nephrology; Bayesian meta-analysis; comparative effectiveness; systematic reviews; hierarchical models; ISPOR TASK-FORCE; NETWORK METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1177/0272989X13481110
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives. Bayesian statistical methods are increasingly popular as a tool for meta-analysis of clinical trial data involving both direct and indirect treatment comparisons. However, appropriate selection of prior distributions for unknown model parameters and checking of consistency assumptions required for modeling remain particularly challenging. We compared Bayesian and traditional frequentist statistical methods for mixed treatment comparisons with multiple binary outcomes. Data. We searched major electronic bibliographic databases, Food and Drug Administration reviews, trial registries, and research grant databases up to December 2011 to find randomized studies published in English that examined drugs for female urgency urinary incontinence (UI) on continence, improvement in UI, and treatment discontinuation due to harm. Methods. We describe and fit fixed and random effects models in both Bayesian and frequentist statistical frameworks. In a hierarchical model of 8 treatments, we separately analyze 1 safety and 2 efficacy outcomes. We produce Bayesian and frequentist treatment ranks and odds ratios across all drug v placebo comparisons, as well as Bayesian probabilities that each drug is best overall through a weighted scoring rule that trades off efficacy and safety. Results. In our study, Bayesian and frequentist random effects models generally suggest the same drugs as most attractive, although neither suggests any significant differences between drugs. However, the Bayesian methods more consistently identify one drug (propiverine) as best overall, produce interval estimates that are generally better at capturing all sources of uncertainty in the data, and also permit attractive rankograms that visually capture the probability that each drug assumes each possible rank. Conclusions. Bayesian methods are more flexible and their results more clinically interpretable, but they require more careful development and specialized software.
引用
收藏
页码:702 / 714
页数:13
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons
    Hong, Hwanhee
    Chu, Haitao
    Zhang, Jing
    Carlin, Bradley P.
    RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2016, 7 (01) : 6 - 22
  • [2] Bayesian and frequentist approaches to parametric predictive inference
    Smith, RL
    BAYESIAN STATISTICS 6, 1999, : 589 - 612
  • [3] Bayesian indirect and mixed treatment comparisons across longitudinal time points
    Ding, Ying
    Fu, Haoda
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (15) : 2613 - 2628
  • [4] An alternative parameterization of Bayesian logistic hierarchical models for mixed treatment comparisons
    Pechlivanoglou, Petros
    Abegaz, Fentaw
    Postma, Maarten J.
    Wit, Ernst
    PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2015, 14 (04) : 322 - 331
  • [5] Presentational approaches used in the UK for reporting evidence synthesis using indirect and mixed treatment comparisons
    Tan, Sze Huey
    Bujkiewicz, Sylwia
    Sutton, Alexander
    Dequen, Pascale
    Cooper, Nicola
    JOURNAL OF HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH & POLICY, 2013, 18 (04) : 224 - 232
  • [6] Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review
    Sobieraj, Diana M.
    Cappelleri, Joseph C.
    Baker, William L.
    Phung, Olivia J.
    White, C. Michael
    Coleman, Craig I.
    BMJ OPEN, 2013, 3 (07):
  • [7] Overview of Differences and Similarities of Published Mixed Treatment Comparisons on Pharmaceutical Interventions for Multiple Sclerosis
    Pia Sormani, Maria
    Wolff, Robert
    Lang, Shona
    Duffy, Steven
    Hyde, Robert
    Kinter, Elizabeth
    Wakeford, Craig
    Giovannoni, Gavin
    Kleijnen, Jos
    NEUROLOGY AND THERAPY, 2020, 9 (02) : 335 - 358
  • [8] Bayesian Mixed Treatment Comparisons Meta-Analysis for Correlated Outcomes Subject to Reporting Bias
    Liu, Yulun
    DeSantis, Stacia M. M.
    Chen, Yong
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES C-APPLIED STATISTICS, 2018, 67 (01) : 127 - 144
  • [9] Algorithmic parameterization of mixed treatment comparisons
    Gert van Valkenhoef
    Tommi Tervonen
    Bert de Brock
    Hans Hillege
    Statistics and Computing, 2012, 22 : 1099 - 1111
  • [10] Algorithmic parameterization of mixed treatment comparisons
    van Valkenhoef, Gert
    Tervonen, Tommi
    de Brock, Bert
    Hillege, Hans
    STATISTICS AND COMPUTING, 2012, 22 (05) : 1099 - 1111