Correction to: Bayesian meta-analytical methods to incorporate multiple surrogate endpoints in drug development process (Statistics in Medicine, (2016), 35, 7, (1063-1089), 10.1002/sim.6776);Bayesian meta-analytical methods to incorporate multiple surrogate endpoints in drug development process

Statistics in Medicine

Volumn 35, Issue 7, 2016, Pages 1063-1089

  Bujkiewicz, Sylwia ^a   Thompson, John R ^a   Riley, Richard D ^b   Abrams, Keith R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b KEELE UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bayesian analysis; Multiple outcomes; Multiple sclerosis; Multivariate meta analysis; Surrogate endpoints

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; BAYESIAN MULTIVARIATE META ANALYTIC METHOD; COVARIANCE; DISABILITY SEVERITY; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NORMAL DISTRIBUTION; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; RECURRENCE RISK; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SIMULATION; TREATMENT RESPONSE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DISEASE COURSE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA;

BIOLOGICAL MARKER;

BAYES THEOREM; BIOMARKERS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DISEASE PROGRESSION; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, RELAPSING-REMITTING; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS;

EID: 84959541816     PISSN: 02776715     EISSN: 10970258     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/sim.9597     Document Type: Erratum

References (35)

1. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M. The Evaluation of Surrogate Endpoints. Springer: New York, 2006.
2. Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Statistics in Medicine. 1997; 16: 1965-1982.
3. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Burzykowski T, Renard D, Geys H. The validation of surrogate endpoints in meta-analyses of randomized experiments. Biostatistics. 2000; 1: 49-67.
4. Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Statistics in Medicine. 1989; 8: 431-440.
5. Burzykowski T, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Geys H, Renard D. Validation of surrogate end points in multiple randomized clinical trials with failure time end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C (Applied Statistics). 2001; 50: 405-422.
6. 2 for the meta-analytic evaluation of surrogate time-to-event endpoints in clinical trials. Statistics in Medicine. 2012; 31: 743-761.
7. De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenberg SS, Friedman L, Gail MH, Prentice R, Wittes J, Zeger SL. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2001; 22: 485-502.
8. Xu J, Zeger SL. The evaluation of multiple surrogate endpoints. Biometrics. 2001; 57: 81-87.
9. O'Brien WA, Hartigan PM, Martin D, Esinhart J, Hill A, Benoit S, Rubin M, Simberkoff MS, Hamilton JD. Changes in plasma HIV-1 amd CD4+ lymphocyte counts and the risk of progression to AIDS. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1996; 334: 426-431.
10. Mellors JW, Muñoz A, Giorgi JV, Margolick JB, Tassoni CJ, Gupta P, Kingsley LA, Todd JA, Saah AJ, Detels R, Phair JP, Rinaldo Jr. CR. Plasma viral load and CD4+ lumphocytes as prognostic markers of HIV-1 infection. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1997; 126: 946-954.
11. Sormani MP, Li DK, Bruzzi P, Stubinski B, Cornelisse P, Rocak S, De Stefano N. Combined MRI lesions and relapses as a surrogate for disability in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2011; 77: 1684-1690.
12. Bujkiewicz S, Thompson JR, Spata E, Abrams KR. Uncertainty in the Bayesian meta-analysis of normally distributed surrogate endpoints. Statistical Methods in Medical Research. 2015. E-pub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0962280215597260.
13. Jackson D, Riley R, White IR. Multivariate meta-analysis: Potential and promise. Statistics in Medicine. 2011; 30: 2481-2498.
14. Riley RD, Abrams KR, Lambert PC, Sutton AJ. Thompson JR An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes. Statistics in Medicine. 2007; 26: 78-97.
15. Riley RD. Multivariate meta-analysis: the effect of ignoring within-study correlation. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A. 2009; 172: 789-811.
16. Bujkiewicz S, Thompson JR, Sutton AJ, Cooper NJ, Harrison MJ, Symmons DPM, Abrams KR. Multivariate meta-analysis of mixed outcomes: a Bayesian approach. Statistics in Medicine. 2013; 32: 3926-3943.
17. Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, Mancardi GL, Uccelli A, Bruzzi P. Surrogate endpoints for EDSS worsening in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analytic approach. Neurology. 2010; 75: 302-309.
18. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, Jones DR. How vague is vague A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Statistics in Medicine. 2005; 24: 2401-2428.
19. Wei Y, Higgins JPT. Estimating within-study covariances in multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes. Statistics in Medicine. 2013; 32: 1191-1205.
20. Buyse M, Molenberghs G. The validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998; 54: 2797-2812.
21. Wei Y, Higgins JPT. Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis with multiple outcomes. Statistics in Medicine. 2013; 32: 2911-34.
22. Higgins JPT, Whitehead A. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Statistics in Medicine. 1996; 15: 2733-2749.
23. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, Lunn D. 2003. WinBUGS User Manual (Version 1.4). http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/manual14.pdf (accessed 16 Aug 1012).
24. Sturtz S, Ligges U, Gelman A. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. Journal of Statistical Software. 2005; 12: 1-16.
25. Compston A, Coles A. Multiple sclerosis. The Lancet. 2008; 372: 1502-1517.
26. Sormani MP, Bonzano L, Roccatagliata L, Cutter GR, Mancardi GL, Bruzzi P. Magnetic resonance imaging as a potential surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analytic approach. Annals of Neurology. 2009; 65: 268-275.
27. Sormani MP, Stubinski B, Cornelisse P, Rocak S, Li D, De Stefano N. Magnetic resonance active lesions as individual-level surrogate for relapses in multiple sclerosis. Multiple Sclerosis. 2011; 17: 541-549.
28. Riley RD, Abrams KR, Sutton AJ, Lambert PC. Thompson JR Bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and the estimation of between-study correlation. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2007; 7: 3.
29. Stijnen T, Hamzab TH, Özdemir P. Random effects meta-analysis of event outcome in the framework of the generalized linear mixed model with applications in sparse data. Statistics in Medicine. 2010; 29: 3046-3067.
30. Joffe MM, Greene T. Related Causal Frameworks for Surrogate Outcomes. Biometrics. 2009; 65: 530-538.
31. VanderWeele TJ. Surrogate Measures and Consistent Surrogates. Biometrics. 2013; 69: 561-581.
32. Buyse M, Molenberghs G, Paoletti X, Oba K, Alonso A, Van der Elst W, Burzykowski T. Statistical evaluation of surrogate endpoints with examples from cancer clinical trials. Biometrical Journal. 2015. E-pub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1002/bimj.201400049.
33. Pearl J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference. Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
34. Chen H, Geng Z, Jia J. Criteria for surrogate end points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B. 2007; 69: 919-932.
35. Alonso A, Van der Elst W, Molenberghs G, Buyse M, Burzykowski T. On the relationship between the causal-inference and meta-analytic paradigms for the validation of surrogate endpoints. Biometrics. 2014; 71: 15-24.