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
  • [31] C-reactive protein and fracture risk: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies through the use of both frequentist and Bayesian approaches
    H. Mun
    B. Liu
    T. H. A. Pham
    Q. Wu
    Osteoporosis International, 2021, 32 : 425 - 435
  • [32] Increasing transparency in indirect treatment comparisons: is selecting effect modifiers the missing part of the puzzle? review of methodological approaches and critical considerations A
    Freitag, Andreas
    Gurskyte, Laura
    Sarri, Grammati
    JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS RESEARCH, 2023, 12 (10)
  • [33] Visualizing the flow of evidence in network meta-analysis and characterizing mixed treatment comparisons
    Koenig, Jochem
    Krahn, Ulrike
    Binder, Harald
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2013, 32 (30) : 5414 - 5429
  • [34] Directed acyclic graphs can help understand bias in indirect and mixed treatment comparisons
    Jansen, Jeroen P.
    Schmid, Christopher H.
    Salanti, Georgia
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2012, 65 (07) : 798 - 807
  • [35] Review of mixed treatment comparisons in published systematic reviews shows marked increase since 2009
    Lee, Andrew W.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (02) : 138 - 143
  • [36] Identifying the best treatment choice for relapsing/refractory glioblastoma: a systematic review with multiple Bayesian network meta-analyses
    Schettini, Francesco
    Pineda, Estela
    Rocca, Andrea
    Buche, Victoria
    Donofrio, Carmine Antonio
    Mazariegos, Manuel
    Ferrari, Benvenuto
    Tancredi, Richard
    Panni, Stefano
    Cominetti, Marika
    Di Somma, Alberto
    Gonzalez, Josep
    Fioravanti, Antonio
    Venturini, Sergio
    Generali, Daniele
    ONCOLOGIST, 2024,
  • [37] Combining Multiple Treatment Comparisons with Personalized Patient Preferences: A Randomized Trial of an Interactive Platform for Statin Treatment Selection
    Hopkin, Gareth
    Au, Anson
    Collier, Verena Jane
    Yudkin, John S.
    Basu, Sanjay
    Naci, Huseyin
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2019, 39 (03) : 264 - 277
  • [38] Tranexamic acid in total hip arthroplasty: Mixed treatment comparisons of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies
    Sridharan, Kannan
    Sivaramakrishnan, Gowri
    JOURNAL OF ORTHOPAEDICS, 2018, 15 (01) : 81 - 88
  • [39] Physical outcome measures for conductive and mixed hearing loss treatment: A systematic review
    Johansson, M. L.
    Tysome, J. R.
    Hill-Feltham, P.
    Hodgetts, W. E.
    Ostevik, A.
    McKinnon, B. J.
    Monksfield, P.
    Sockalingam, R.
    Wright, T.
    CLINICAL OTOLARYNGOLOGY, 2018, 43 (05) : 1226 - 1234
  • [40] Multiple surgical treatment comparisons for irreparable rotator cuff tears: A network meta-analysis
    Zhou, Xin
    Zhang, Xiaohua
    Jin, Xianrong
    Deng, Jialin
    Zhang, Zhongzu
    Yu, Yating
    MEDICINE, 2023, 102 (22) : E33832