IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i7p3492-d525445.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors

Author

Listed:
  • Fahad M. Al Amer

    (Department of Mathematics, College of Science and Arts, Najran University, Najran 55461, Saudi Arabia
    Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA)

  • Christopher G. Thompson

    (Department of Educational Psychology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA)

  • Lifeng Lin

    (Department of Statistics, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA)

Abstract

Bayesian methods are an important set of tools for performing meta-analyses. They avoid some potentially unrealistic assumptions that are required by conventional frequentist methods. More importantly, meta-analysts can incorporate prior information from many sources, including experts’ opinions and prior meta-analyses. Nevertheless, Bayesian methods are used less frequently than conventional frequentist methods, primarily because of the need for nontrivial statistical coding, while frequentist approaches can be implemented via many user-friendly software packages. This article aims at providing a practical review of implementations for Bayesian meta-analyses with various prior distributions. We present Bayesian methods for meta-analyses with the focus on odds ratio for binary outcomes. We summarize various commonly used prior distribution choices for the between-studies heterogeneity variance, a critical parameter in meta-analyses. They include the inverse-gamma, uniform, and half-normal distributions, as well as evidence-based informative log-normal priors. Five real-world examples are presented to illustrate their performance. We provide all of the statistical code for future use by practitioners. Under certain circumstances, Bayesian methods can produce markedly different results from those by frequentist methods, including a change in decision on statistical significance. When data information is limited, the choice of priors may have a large impact on meta-analytic results, in which case sensitivity analyses are recommended. Moreover, the algorithm for implementing Bayesian analyses may not converge for extremely sparse data; caution is needed in interpreting respective results. As such, convergence should be routinely examined. When select statistical assumptions that are made by conventional frequentist methods are violated, Bayesian methods provide a reliable alternative to perform a meta-analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Fahad M. Al Amer & Christopher G. Thompson & Lifeng Lin, 2021. "Bayesian Methods for Meta-Analyses of Binary Outcomes: Implementations, Examples, and Impact of Priors," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(7), pages 1-14, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3492-:d:525445
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3492/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/7/3492/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Miguel-Angel Negrín-Hernández & María Martel-Escobar & Francisco-José Vázquez-Polo, 2021. "Bayesian Meta-Analysis for Binary Data and Prior Distribution on Models," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-18, January.
    2. Jayne F Tierney & David J Fisher & Sarah Burdett & Lesley A Stewart & Mahesh K B Parmar, 2020. "Comparison of aggregate and individual participant data approaches to meta-analysis of randomised trials: An observational study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-22, January.
    3. Hwanhee Hong & Bradley P. Carlin & Tatyana A. Shamliyan & Jean F. Wyman & Rema Ramakrishnan & François Sainfort & Robert L. Kane, 2013. "Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 702-714, July.
    4. Haben Michael & Suzanne Thornton & Minge Xie & Lu Tian, 2019. "Exact inference on the random‐effects model for meta‐analyses with few studies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 75(2), pages 485-493, June.
    5. Lifeng Lin, 2018. "Bias caused by sampling error in meta-analysis with small sample sizes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Julian P. T. Higgins & Simon G. Thompson & David J. Spiegelhalter, 2009. "A re‐evaluation of random‐effects meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 172(1), pages 137-159, January.
    7. Lin, Lifeng & Zhang, Jing & Hodges, James S. & Chu, Haitao, 2017. "Performing Arm-Based Network Meta-Analysis in R with the pcnetmeta Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 80(i05).
    8. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Cinar, Ozan & Nakagawa, Shinichi & Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2020. "Phylogenetic multilevel meta-analysis: A simulation study on the importance of modeling the phylogeny," EcoEvoRxiv su4zv, Center for Open Science.
    2. Peter Hartley & Patricia Costello & Rachel Fenner & Nathalie Gibbins & Édáin Quinn & Isla Kuhn & Victoria L Keevil & Roman Romero-Ortuno, 2019. "Change in skeletal muscle associated with unplanned hospital admissions in adult patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-21, January.
    3. Bachmann, Federico & Liseras, Natacha & Graña, Fernando Manuel, 2021. "Innovative performance and firm size: a meta-regression analysis," Nülan. Deposited Documents 3614, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    4. Whitney S Beck & Ed K Hall, 2018. "Confounding factors in algal phosphorus limitation experiments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-19, October.
    5. Xindong Xue & W. Robert Reed & Robbie C.M. van Aert, 2022. "Social Capital and Economic Growth: A Meta-Analysis," Working Papers in Economics 22/20, University of Canterbury, Department of Economics and Finance.
    6. Bart Verkuil & Serpil Atasayi & Marc L Molendijk, 2015. "Workplace Bullying and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis on Cross-Sectional and Longitudinal Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    7. Francesca Pilotto & Ingolf Kühn & Rita Adrian & Renate Alber & Audrey Alignier & Christopher Andrews & Jaana Bäck & Luc Barbaro & Deborah Beaumont & Natalie Beenaerts & Sue Benham & David S. Boukal & , 2020. "Meta-analysis of multidecadal biodiversity trends in Europe," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 11(1), pages 1-11, December.
    8. repec:cup:judgdm:v:15:y:2020:i:6:p:972-988 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Jonas Schmidt & Tammo H. A. Bijmolt, 2020. "Accurately measuring willingness to pay for consumer goods: a meta-analysis of the hypothetical bias," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 48(3), pages 499-518, May.
    10. Yeojin Chung & Sophia Rabe-Hesketh & Vincent Dorie & Andrew Gelman & Jingchen Liu, 2013. "A Nondegenerate Penalized Likelihood Estimator for Variance Parameters in Multilevel Models," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 78(4), pages 685-709, October.
    11. Sofia Dias & Alex J. Sutton & Nicky J. Welton & A. E. Ades, 2013. "Evidence Synthesis for Decision Making 3," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(5), pages 618-640, July.
    12. Amanda Kvarven & Eirik Strømland & Conny Wollbrant & David Andersson & Magnus Johannesson & Gustav Tinghög & Daniel Västfjäll & Kristian Ove R. Myrseth, 2020. "The intuitive cooperation hypothesis revisited: a meta-analytic examination of effect size and between-study heterogeneity," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 26-42, June.
    13. Mario Herberz & Tobias Brosch & Ulf J. J. Hahnel, 2020. "Kilo what? Default units increase value sensitivity in joint evaluations of energy efficiency," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(6), pages 972-988, November.
    14. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    15. Le Chen & Ao Yuan & Aiyi Liu & Guanjie Chen, 2014. "Longitudinal data analysis using Bayesian-frequentist hybrid random effects model," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(9), pages 2001-2010, September.
    16. Molo, Fabio & Pawel, Samuel & Fraga González, Gorka, 2024. "A Robustness Reproduction of "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 90 Cohort Studies of Social Isolation, Loneliness and Mortality"," I4R Discussion Paper Series 169, The Institute for Replication (I4R).
    17. Augusteijn, Hilde Elisabeth Maria & van Aert, Robbie Cornelis Maria & van Assen, Marcel A. L. M., 2021. "Posterior Probabilities of Effect Sizes and Heterogeneity in Meta-Analysis: An Intuitive Approach of Dealing with Publication Bias," OSF Preprints avkgj, Center for Open Science.
    18. Georgiou, George K. & Guo, Kan & Naveenkumar, Nithya & Vieira, Ana Paula Alves & Das, J.P., 2020. "PASS theory of intelligence and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. Geller, Susann & Wilhelm, Oliver & Wacker, Jan & Hamm, Alfons & Hildebrandt, Andrea, 2017. "Associations of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism with working memory and intelligence – A review and meta-analysis," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 75-92.
    20. Gignac, Gilles E. & Bates, Timothy C., 2017. "Brain volume and intelligence: The moderating role of intelligence measurement quality," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 18-29.
    21. Stephan Kambach & Ingolf Kühn & Bastien Castagneyrol & Helge Bruelheide, 2016. "The Impact of Tree Diversity on Different Aspects of Insect Herbivory along a Global Temperature Gradient - A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:7:p:3492-:d:525445. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.