A Bayesian network meta-analysis for binary outcome: How to do it

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 25, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 1757-1773

  Greco, Teresa ^a,b   Landoni, Giovanni ^a   Biondi Zoccai, Giuseppe ^c,d   D'Ascenzo, Fabrizio ^d,e   Zangrillo, Alberto ^a  

^a SAN RAFFAELE HOSPITAL   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

^c SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^d Metaanalysis and Evidence Based Medicine Training in Cardiology (METCARDIO)   (Italy)

^e CITTÀ DELLA SALUTE E DELLA SCIENZA HOSPITAL   (Italy)

Author keywords

anaesthetic agents; Bayesian; binary outcomes; hierarchical models; mixed treatment comparison; network meta analysis; WinBUGS

Indexed keywords

ANESTHETIC AGENT;

ACCURACY; ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DATA ANALYSIS; GEOMETRY; HUMAN; MARKOV CHAIN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MONTE CARLO METHOD; MORTALITY; PREDICTION; PROBABILITY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SURVIVAL RATE; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS;

BAYES THEOREM; HUMANS; MARKOV CHAINS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS;

EID: 84989807611     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280213500185     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC, et al. Users' guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-based Medicine Working Group. J Am Med Assoc 1995; 274: 1800-1804.
2. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72.
3. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-691.
4. Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, et al. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 326: 472-472.
5. Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR task force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 1. Value Health 2011; 14: 417-428.
6. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JPT,. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 2005; 331: 897-900.
7. Lumley T,. Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2313-2324.
8. Lu G, Ades AE,. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105-3124.
9. Smith TC, Spiegelhalter DJ, Thomas A,. Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: a comparative study. Stat Med 1995; 14: 2685-2699.
10. Spiegelhalter D, Thomas A, Best N, et al. WinBUGS User Manual. Version 1.4, http://www.mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs (2003, accessed April 2012).
11. Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG,. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context, London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2001, pp. 69-86.
12. Hawkins N, Scott DA, Woods B,. How far do you go? Efficient searching for indirect evidence. Med Decis Making 2009; 29: 273-281.
13. Lu G, Ades AE,. Assessing evidence inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 2006; 101: 447-459.
14. Salanti G, Higgins JP, Ades AE, et al. Evaluation of networks of randomized trials. Stat Meth Med Res 2008; 17: 279-301.
15. Salanti G, Kavvoura FK, Ioannidis JP,. Exploring the geometry of treatment networks. Ann Intern Med 2008; 148: 544-553.
16. Magurran AE,. Ecological diversity and its measurement, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
17. Hamilton AJ,. Species diversity or biodiversity? J Environ Manage 2005; 75: 89-92.
18. Tiho S, Josensb G,. Co-occurrence of earthworms in urban surroundings: a null model analysis of community structure. Eur J Soil Biol 2007; 43: 84-90.
19. Stone L, Robert A,. The checkerboard score and species distributions. Oncologia 1990; 85: 74-79.
20. Salton G,. Introduction to modern information retrieval, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
21. Sutton A, Ades AE, Cooper N, et al. Use of indirect and mixed treatment comparisons for technology assessment. Pharmacoeconomics 2008; 26: 753-767.
22. Jansen JP, Crawford B, Bergman G, et al. Bayesian meta-analysis of multiple treatment comparisons: an introduction to mixed treatment comparisons. Value Health 2008; 11: 956-964.
23. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG,. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002; 21: 1539-1558.
24. Brockwell SE, Gordon IR,. A comparison of statistical methods for meta-analysis. Stat Med 2001; 20: 825-840.
25. Kontopantelis E, Reeves D,. Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: a simulation study. Stat Meth Med Res 2012; 21: 409-426.
26. Kontopantelis E, Reeves D,. Performance of statistical methods for meta-analysis when true study effects are non-normally distributed: a comparison between DerSimonian-Laird and restricted maximum likelihood. Stat Meth Med Res 2012; 21: 657-659.
27. Higgins JP, Whitehead A,. Borrowing strength from external trials in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 1996; 15: 2733-2749.
28. Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, et al. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol 2012; 41: 818-827.
29. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. BMJ 2009; 3: b1147-b1147.
30. Donegan S, Williamson P, Gamble C, et al. Indirect comparisons: a review of reporting and methodological quality. PLoS One 2010; 5: e11054-e11054.
31. Hardy RJ, Thompson SG,. Detecting and describing heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Stat Med 1998; 17: 841-856.
32. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327: 557-560.
33. Higgins JPT and Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration, http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/ (2011, accessed April 2012).
34. Mittlböck M, Heinzl H,. A simulation study comparing properties of heterogeneity measures in meta-analyses. Stat Med 2006; 25: 4321-4333.
35. Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP,. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation, New York, NY: Wiley, 2004.
36. Cooper NJ, Sutton AJ, Morris D, et al. Addressing between-study heterogeneity and inconsistency in mixed treatment comparisons: application to stroke prevention treatments in individuals with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation. Stat Med 2009; 28: 1861-1881.
37. Caldwell DM, Welton NJ, Ades AE,. Mixed treatment comparison analysis provides internally coherent treatment effect estimates based on overviews of reviews and can reveal inconsistency. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 875-882.
38. Dias S, Welton WJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 4: inconsistency in networks of evidence based on randomised controlled trial, http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (2011, accessed March 2012).
39. Franchini AJ, Dias S, Ades AE, et al. Accounting for correlation in network meta-analysis with multi-arm trials. Res Synth Meth 2012; 3: 142-160.
40. Dias S, Welton NJ, Sutton AJ, et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2: a generalised linear modelling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials, http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (2011, accessed March 2012).
41. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on indirect treatment comparisons good research practices: Part 2. Value Health 2011; 14: 429-437.
42. Dias S, Sutton AJ, Welton WJ, et al. NICE DSU technical support document 3: heterogeneity: subgroups, meta-regression, bias and bias-adjustment, http://www.nicedsu.org.uk (accessed March 2012).
43. Nixon RM, Bansback N, Brennan A,. Using mixed treatment comparisons and meta-regression to perform indirect comparisons to estimate the efficacy of biologic treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Stat Med 2007; 26: 1237-1254.
44. Lu G, Ades A,. Modeling between-trial variance structure in mixed treatment comparisons. Biostatistics 2009; 10: 792-805.
45. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, et al. A comparison of summary patient-level covariates in meta-regression with individual patient data meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 86-94.
46. Berlin JA, Santanna J, Schmid CH, et al. Anti-Lymphocyte Antibody Induction Therapy Study Group. Individual patient- versus group-level data meta-regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head. Stat Med 2002; 21: 371-387.
47. Greenland S, Morgenstern H,. Ecological bias, confounding, and effect modification. Int J Epidemiol 1989; 18: 269-274.
48. Ntzoufras I,. Bayesian modeling using WinBUGS, New York, NY: Wiley, 2009.
49. Adamakis S, Raftery CL, Walsh RW, et al. A Bayesian approach to comparing theoretic models to observational data: a case study from solar flare physics. astro-ph.SR 2012; arXiv:1102.0242v3, http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.0242 (accessed November 2012).
50. Van Dongen S,. Prior specification in Bayesian statistics: three cautionary tales. J Theor Biol 2006; 242: 90-100.
51. Gelman A,. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 515-533.
52. Crowder MJ,. Maximum likelihood estimation for dependent observations. J Royal Stat Soc 1976; B38: 45-53.
53. Gouriéroux C, Holly A, Monfort A,. Likelihood Ratio Test, Wald Test, and Kuhn-Tucker Test in linear models with inequality constraints on the regression parameters. Econometrica 1982; 50: 63-80.
54. Akaike H, Information theory as an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. In: Petrov BN, Casaki, (eds). Second international symposium on information, Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1973, pp. 267-281.
55. Schwarz G,. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann Stat 1978; 6: 461-464.
56. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best NG and Carlin BP. Bayesian deviance, the effective number of parameters, and the comparison of arbitrarily complex models. Technical Report, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK, 1998, http://yaroslavvb.com/papers/spiegelhalter-bayesian.pdf (accessed March 2012).
57. Dempster AP,. The direct use of likelihood for significance testing. Stat Comput 1997; 7: 247-252.
58. Berg A, Meyer R, Yu J,. Deviance information criterion for comparing stochastic volatility models. J Bus Econ Stat 2004; 22: 107-120.
59. Spiegelhalter DJ, Best ng, Carlin BP, et al. Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J Royal Stat Soc Ser B 2002; 64: 583-639.
60. Yuan Y, Johnson VE,. Goodness-of-fit diagnostics for Bayesian hierarchical models. Biometrics 2012; 68: 156-164.
61. Kass RE, Raftery AE,. Bayes factors. J Am Stat Assoc 1995; 90: 773-795.
62. Salanti G, Ades AE, Ioannidis JP,. Graphical methods and numerical summaries for presenting results from multiple-treatment meta-analysis: an overview and tutorial. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 163-171.
63. Landoni G, Rodseth R, Santini F, et al. Randomized evidence for reduction in perioperative mortality. JCVA 2012; 26: 764-772.
64. Ades AE, Sculpher M, Sutton A, et al. Bayesian methods for evidence synthesis in cost-effectiveness analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2006; 24: 1-19.