Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis with empirical heterogeneity priors for application in health technology assessment with very few studies.
external information
heterogeneity
hierarchical model
meta-analysis
prior distribution
Journal
Research synthesis methods
ISSN: 1759-2887
Titre abrégé: Res Synth Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101543738
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Dec 2023
28 Dec 2023
Historique:
revised:
04
10
2023
received:
17
03
2023
accepted:
03
11
2023
medline:
28
12
2023
pubmed:
28
12
2023
entrez:
28
12
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
In Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis, the use of weakly informative prior distributions is of particular benefit in cases where only a few studies are included, a situation often encountered in health technology assessment (HTA). Suggestions for empirical prior distributions are available in the literature but it is unknown whether these are adequate in the context of HTA. Therefore, a database of all relevant meta-analyses conducted by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG, Germany) was constructed to derive empirical prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter suitable for HTA. Previously, an extension to the normal-normal hierarchical model had been suggested for this purpose. For different effect measures, this extended model was applied on the database to conservatively derive a prior distribution for the heterogeneity parameter. Comparison of a Bayesian approach using the derived priors with IQWiG's current standard approach for evidence synthesis shows favorable properties. Therefore, these prior distributions are recommended for future meta-analyses in HTA settings and could be embedded into the IQWiG evidence synthesis approach in the case of very few studies.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. General Methods: Version 6.1. 2022 https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/general-methods_version-6-1.pdf
Röver C, Bender R, Dias S, et al. On weakly informative prior distributions for the heterogeneity parameter in Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12(4):448-474. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1475
Bender R, Friede T, Koch A, et al. Methods for evidence synthesis in the case of very few studies. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9(3):382-392. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1297
Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JP. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):52-60. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.012
Turner RM, Jackson D, Wei Y, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2015;34(6):984-998. doi:10.1002/sim.6381
Röver C, Sturtz S, Lilienthal J, Bender R, Friede T. Summarizing empirical information on between-study heterogeneity for Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2023;42(14):2439-2454. doi:10.1002/sim.9731
Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Bender R, et al. Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(1):23-43. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1319
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2022 https://www.R-project.org/
Plummer M. JAGS: a program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Proc 3rd Int Workshop Distrib Stat Comput. 2003;124(125.10):1-10.
Plummer M. rjags: Bayesian Graphical Models using MCMC. 2022 https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags
Friede T, Röver C, Wandel S, Neuenschwander B. Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases. Res Synth Methods. 2017;8(1):79-91.
Röver C. Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the Bayesmeta R package. J Stat Softw. 2020;93(6):1-51. doi:10.18637/jss.v093.i06
Hartung J. An alternative method for meta-analysis. Biom J. 1999;41(8):901-916. doi:10.1002/(Sici)1521-4036(199912)41:8<901::Aid-Bimj901>3.0.Co;2-W
Knapp G, Hartung J. Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Stat Med. 2003;22(17):2693-2710. doi:10.1002/sim.1482
DerSimonian R, Laird NM. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7(3):177-188. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd ed. Wiley & Sons; 2019.
Schulz A, Schürmann C, Skipka G, Bender R. Performing meta-analyses with very few studies. In: Evangelou E, Veroniki AA, eds. Meta-Research: Methods and Protocols. 2345 of Methods in Molecular Biology. Humana Press; 2022:91-102.
Skipka G, Wieseler B, Kaiser T, et al. Methodological approach to determine minor, considerable, and major treatment effects in the early benefit assessment of new drugs. Biom J. 2016;58(1):43-58. doi:10.1002/bimj.201300274