IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v33y2013i5p702-714.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparing Bayesian and Frequentist Approaches for Multiple Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons

Author

Listed:
  • Hwanhee Hong
  • Bradley P. Carlin
  • Tatyana A. Shamliyan
  • Jean F. Wyman
  • Rema Ramakrishnan
  • François Sainfort
  • Robert L. Kane

Abstract

Objectives . Bayesian statistical methods are increasingly popular as a tool for meta-analysis of clinical trial data involving both direct and indirect treatment comparisons. However, appropriate selection of prior distributions for unknown model parameters and checking of consistency assumptions required for modeling remain particularly challenging. We compared Bayesian and traditional frequentist statistical methods for mixed treatment comparisons with multiple binary outcomes. Data . We searched major electronic bibliographic databases, Food and Drug Administration reviews, trial registries, and research grant databases up to December 2011 to find randomized studies published in English that examined drugs for female urgency urinary incontinence (UI) on continence, improvement in UI, and treatment discontinuation due to harm. Methods . We describe and fit fixed and random effects models in both Bayesian and frequentist statistical frameworks. In a hierarchical model of 8 treatments, we separately analyze 1 safety and 2 efficacy outcomes. We produce Bayesian and frequentist treatment ranks and odds ratios across all drug v placebo comparisons, as well as Bayesian probabilities that each drug is best overall through a weighted scoring rule that trades off efficacy and safety. Results . In our study, Bayesian and frequentist random effects models generally suggest the same drugs as most attractive, although neither suggests any significant differences between drugs. However, the Bayesian methods more consistently identify one drug (propiverine) as best overall, produce interval estimates that are generally better at capturing all sources of uncertainty in the data, and also permit attractive “rankograms†that visually capture the probability that each drug assumes each possible rank. Conclusions . Bayesian methods are more flexible and their results more clinically interpretable, but they require more careful development and specialized software.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:702-714
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X13481110
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X13481110
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X13481110?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lu, Guobing & Ades, A.E., 2006. "Assessing Evidence Inconsistency in Mixed Treatment Comparisons," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 101, pages 447-459, June.
    2. Sarah Donegan & Paula Williamson & Carrol Gamble & Catrin Tudur-Smith, 2010. "Indirect Comparisons: A Review of Reporting and Methodological Quality," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(11), pages 1-11, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.

    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. Anna Chaimani & Julian P T Higgins & Dimitris Mavridis & Panagiota Spyridonos & Georgia Salanti, 2013. "Graphical Tools for Network Meta-Analysis in STATA," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-12, October.
    2. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Mark Belger & Alan Brnabic & Alexander Schacht & Daniel Saure & Zbigniew Kadziola & Nicky J. Welton, 2020. "Multilevel network meta‐regression for population‐adjusted treatment comparisons," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 183(3), pages 1189-1210, June.
    3. Shuyan Gu & Jihao Shi & Zhiliu Tang & Monika Sawhney & Huimei Hu & Lizheng Shi & Vivian Fonseca & Hengjin Dong, 2015. "Comparison of Glucose Lowering Effect of Metformin and Acarbose in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-22, May.
    4. Dan Jackson & Sylwia Bujkiewicz & Martin Law & Richard D. Riley & Ian R. White, 2018. "A matrix†based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta†analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(2), pages 548-556, June.
    5. Giammarco Alderotti & Daniele Vignoli & Michela Baccini & Anna Matysiak, 2019. "Employment Uncertainty and Fertility: A Network Meta-Analysis of European Research Findings," Econometrics Working Papers Archive 2019_06, Universita' degli Studi di Firenze, Dipartimento di Statistica, Informatica, Applicazioni "G. Parenti".
    6. Pepijn Vemer & Maiwenn J Al & Mark Oppe & Maureen P M H Rutten-van Mölken, 2017. "Mix and match. A simulation study on the impact of mixed-treatment comparison methods on health-economic outcomes," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-20, February.
    7. Jing Zhang & Yiping Yuan & Haitao Chu, 2016. "The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(12), pages 1-17, December.
    8. J.Jaime Caro & K. Ishak, 2010. "No Head-to-Head Trial? Simulate the Missing Arms," PharmacoEconomics, Springer, vol. 28(10), pages 957-967, October.
    9. van Valkenhoef, Gert & de Brock, E.O. & Hillege, Hans & Zhao, Jing, 2012. "Addis," Research Report 12007-Other, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    10. Loukia M. Spineli, 2022. "A Revised Framework to Evaluate the Consistency Assumption Globally in a Network of Interventions," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(5), pages 637-648, July.
    11. David Lunn & Jessica Barrett & Michael Sweeting & Simon Thompson, 2013. "Fully Bayesian hierarchical modelling in two stages, with application to meta-analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 62(4), pages 551-572, August.
    12. David M. Phillippo & Sofia Dias & A. E. Ades & Vanessa Didelez & Nicky J. Welton, 2018. "Sensitivity of treatment recommendations to bias in network meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 181(3), pages 843-867, June.
    13. Stefanie Reken & Sibylle Sturtz & Corinna Kiefer & Yvonne-Beatrice Böhler & Beate Wieseler, 2016. "Assumptions of Mixed Treatment Comparisons in Health Technology Assessments - Challenges and Possible Steps for Practical Application," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-16, August.
    14. Hillege, Hans & Brock, Bert de & Valkenhoef, Gert van & Zhao, Jing, 2012. "ADDIS: an automated way to do network meta-analysis," Research Report 12007-0ther, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    15. Chunhu Shi & Jo C Dumville & Nicky Cullum, 2018. "Support surfaces for pressure ulcer prevention: A network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-29, February.
    16. H. P. Piepho & E. R. Williams & L. V. Madden, 2012. "The Use of Two-Way Linear Mixed Models in Multitreatment Meta-Analysis," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 68(4), pages 1269-1277, December.
    17. A. Goubar & A. E. Ades & D. De Angelis & C. A. McGarrigle & C. H. Mercer & P. A. Tookey & K. Fenton & O. N. Gill, 2008. "Estimates of human immunodeficiency virus prevalence and proportion diagnosed based on Bayesian multiparameter synthesis of surveillance data," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 171(3), pages 541-580, June.
    18. Howard Thom & Frank Ender & Saisudha Samavedam & Caridad Perez Vivez & Subhajit Gupta & Mukesh Dhariwal & Jan de Haan & Derek O’Boyle, 2019. "Effect of AcrySof versus other intraocular lens properties on the risk of Nd:YAG capsulotomy after cataract surgery: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-15, August.
    19. S. Dias & N. J. Welton & V. C. C. Marinho & G. Salanti & J. P. T. Higgins & A. E. Ades, 2010. "Estimation and adjustment of bias in randomized evidence by using mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 173(3), pages 613-629, July.
    20. Peixia Cheng & Liheng Tan & Peishan Ning & Li Li & Yuyan Gao & Yue Wu & David C. Schwebel & Haitao Chu & Huaiqiong Yin & Guoqing Hu, 2018. "Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-14, March.

    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:sae:medema:v:33:y:2013:i:5:p:702-714. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.