Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 34, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 984-998

  Turner, Rebecca M ^a   Jackson, Dan ^a   Wei, Yinghui ^b   Thompson, Simon G ^c   Higgins, Julian P T ^d,e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PLYMOUTH   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian methods; Heterogeneity; Meta analysis; Prior distributions

Indexed keywords

ACETYLSALICYLIC ACID; ANTICOAGULANT AGENT; TICLOPIDINE;

ACUPUNCTURE; ALGORITHM; ANALYTICAL ERROR; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BETWEEN STUDY HETEROGENEITY; BLEEDING; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; COCAINE DEPENDENCE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CORONARY STENTING; FACTUAL DATABASE; HUMAN; IMPORTANCE SAMPLING; JOINT POSTERIOR DISTRIBUTION; LOG NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; MARKOV CHAIN MONTE CARLO; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MATHEMATICAL PHENOMENA; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NUMERICAL INTEGRATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PREDICTIVE DISTRIBUTION; PRIOR DISTRIBUTION; SAMPLE SIZE; SAMPLING; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL DISTRIBUTION; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; VARIANCE; BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; LITERATURE;

BAYES THEOREM; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; LOGISTIC MODELS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84922218560     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.6381     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Davey J, Turner RM, Clarke MJ, Higgins JPT. Characteristics of meta-analyses and their component studies in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: a cross-sectional, descriptive analysis. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2011; 11:160.
2. Jackson D, Bowden J, Baker R. How does the DerSimonian and Laird procedure for random effects meta-analysis compare with its more efficient but harder to compute counterparts?Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2010; 140:961-970.
3. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 1996; 15:2733-2749.
4. Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Statistics in Medicine 1995; 14:2685-2699.
5. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Spiegelhalter DJ. A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A 2009; 172:137-159.
6. Ades AE, Lu G, Higgins JPT. The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models. Medical Decision Making 2005; 25:646-654.
7. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JPT. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. International Journal of Epidemiology 2012; 41:818-827.
8. Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS-a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Statistics and Computing 2000; 10:325-337.
9. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing: Vienna, Austria, 2013.
10. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1986; 7:177-188.
11. Brooks SP, Gelman A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 1998; 7:434-455.
12. Ripley BD. Stochastic Simulation.John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1987.
13. Geweke J. Bayesian inference in econometric models using Monte Carlo integration. Econometrica 1989;56:1317-1339.
14. Pullenayegum E. An informed reference prior for between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses of binary outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2011; 30:3082-3094.
15. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG, Carlin BP, van der Linde A. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B 2002; 64:583-640.
16. Cosmi B, Rubboli A, Castelvetri CC, Milandri M. Ticlopidine versus oral anticoagulation for coronary stenting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013). Issue 1. Art No.: CD002133.
17. Viechtbauer W. Confidence intervals for the amount of heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine2007; 26:37-52.
18. Gates S, Smith LA, Foxcroft D. Auricular acupuncture for cocaine dependence. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008. Issue 3. Art. No.: CD005192.
19. Hamza TH, Van Houwelingen HC, Stijnen T. The binomial distribution of meta-analysis was preferred to model within-study variability. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008; 61:41-51.
20. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine 2002; 21:1539-1558.
21. Lu G, Ades AE. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009; 10:792-805.
22. Wei Y, Higgins JPT. Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes. Statistics in Medicine 2013; 32:2911-2934.
23. O'Hagan A, Forster J. Kendall's Advanced Theory of Statistics Volume 2B: Bayesian Inference.Wiley: Chichester, 2004.