Dataset Information

Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To identify published closed-loop Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) and to summarise characteristics regarding their conduct and reporting.

Design

Systematic review.

Methods

We searched multiple bibliographic databases (January 2006-31 July 2011) for full-text, English language publications of Bayesian MTCs comparing the effectiveness or safety of ?3 interventions based on randomised controlled trials and having at least one closed loop. Methodological and reporting characteristics of MTCs were extracted in duplicate and summarised descriptively.

Results

We identified 34 Bayesian MTCs spanning 13 clinical areas. Publication of MTCs increased over the 5-year period; with 76.5% published during or after 2009. MTCs included a mean (±SD) of 35.9±30.1 trials (n=33 459±71 233 participants) and 8.5±4.3 interventions (85.7% pharmacological). Non-informative and informative prior distributions were reported to be used in 44.1% and 8.8% of MTCs, respectively, with the remainder failing to specify the prior used. A random-effects model was used to analyse the networks of trials in 58.5% of MTCs, all using WinBUGS; however, code was infrequently provided (20.6%). More than two-thirds of MTCs (76.5%) also conducted traditional meta-analysis. Methods used to evaluate convergence, heterogeneity and inconsistency were infrequently reported, but from those providing detail, methods appeared varied. MTCs most often used a binary effect measure (85.3%) and ranking of interventions based on probability was common (61.8%), although rarely displayed in a figure (8.8% of MTCs). MTCs were published in 24 different journals with a mean impact factor of 9.20±8.71. While 70.8% of journals imposed limits on word counts and 45.8% limits on the number of tables/figures, online supplements/appendices were allowed in 79.2% of journals. Publication of closed-loop Bayesian MTCs is increasing in frequency, but details regarding their methodology are often poorly described. Efforts in clarifying the appropriate methods and reporting of Bayesian MTCs should be of priority.

SUBMITTER: Sobieraj DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3717466 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review.

Sobieraj Diana M DM Cappelleri Joseph C JC Baker William L WL Phung Olivia J OJ White C Michael CM Coleman Craig I CI

BMJ open 20130721 7

<h4>Objectives</h4>To identify published closed-loop Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) and to summarise characteristics regarding their conduct and reporting.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched multiple bibliographic databases (January 2006-31 July 2011) for full-text, English language publications of Bayesian MTCs comparing the effectiveness or safety of ≥3 interventions based on randomised controlled trials and having at least one closed loop. Methodological ...[more]

PMID: 23878173

Similar Datasets

Project description:Systematically evaluating scientific literature is a time consuming endeavor that requires hours of coding and rating. Here, we describe a method to distribute these tasks across a large group through online crowdsourcing. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, crowdsourced workers (microworkers) completed four groups of tasks to evaluate the question, "Do nutrition-obesity studies with conclusions concordant with popular opinion receive more attention in the scientific community than do those that are discordant?" 1) Microworkers who passed a qualification test (19% passed) evaluated abstracts to determine if they were about human studies investigating nutrition and obesity. Agreement between the first two raters' conclusions was moderate (??=?0.586), with consensus being reached in 96% of abstracts. 2) Microworkers iteratively synthesized free-text answers describing the studied foods into one coherent term. Approximately 84% of foods were agreed upon, with only 4 and 8% of ratings failing manual review in different steps. 3) Microworkers were asked to rate the perceived obesogenicity of the synthesized food terms. Over 99% of responses were complete and usable, and opinions of the microworkers qualitatively matched the authors' expert expectations (e.g., sugar-sweetened beverages were thought to cause obesity and fruits and vegetables were thought to prevent obesity). 4) Microworkers extracted citation counts for each paper through Google Scholar. Microworkers reached consensus or unanimous agreement for all successful searches. To answer the example question, data were aggregated and analyzed, and showed no significant association between popular opinion and attention the paper received as measured by Scimago Journal Rank and citation counts. Direct microworker costs totaled $221.75, (estimated cost at minimum wage: $312.61). We discuss important points to consider to ensure good quality control and appropriate pay for microworkers. With good reliability and low cost, crowdsourcing has potential to evaluate published literature in a cost-effective, quick, and reliable manner using existing, easily accessible resources.

Project description:BackgroundRare superficial vascular anomalies represent a wide range of diseases. Their management is difficult given the broad spectrum and the lack of clinical trials assessing treatment efficacy. A randomized clinical trial of vascular anomalies is difficult because of the rarity of the diseases and is enhanced by the population of interest often being children. Therefore, suitable designs are needed. We conducted a methodological systematic literature search to identify designs implemented for investigating the treatment of rare superficial vascular anomalies.MethodsWe conducted a literature search on January 25, 2021, of the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov and European Union Clinical Trials Register databases. This systematic methodological literature search was registered at the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42021232449). Randomized and non-randomized studies were included if they met the following criteria: were prospective studies of rare superficial vascular anomaly therapies, dealt with humans (adults and children) and were published in English from 2000. We excluded case reports/case series reporting fewer than 10 patients, reviews, retrospective studies, animal studies, studies of systemic or common vascular anomalies and non-therapeutic studies. We did not assess risk of bias in the included studies because our review was a methodological one focused on the design used. The review provided a descriptive analysis of relevant features of eligible research studies.ResultsFrom 2046 articles identified, we included 97 studies (62 reports and 35 ongoing studies): 25 randomized controlled studies, 7 non-randomized comparative studies, 64 prospective cohorts and 1 case series. Among the 32 comparative studies included, 21 used a parallel-group design. The 11 other studies used different designs such as cross-over, randomized placebo phase, delayed-start, within-person, or challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge or used a historical control group or an observational run-in period.ConclusionsOur systematic literature search highlights the lack of randomized control trials in superficial vascular anomalies due to the rarity of patients and their heterogeneity. New designs are emerging and can overcome the limitations of testing treatments in parallel groups.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Telemedicine has grown exponentially in the United States over the past few decades, and contemporary trends in the health care environment are serving to fuel this growth into the future. Therefore, medical schools are learning to incorporate telemedicine competencies into the undergraduate medical education of future physicians so that they can more effectively leverage telemedicine technologies for improving the quality of care, increasing patient access, and reducing health care expense. This review articulates the efforts of allopathic-degree-granting medical schools in the United States to characterize and systematize the learnings that have been generated thus far in the domain of telemedicine training in undergraduate medical education. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this review was to collect and outline the current experiences and learnings that have been generated as medical schools have sought to implement telemedicine capacity-building into undergraduate medical education. METHODS:We performed a mixed-methods review, starting with a literature review via Scopus, tracking with Excel, and an email outreach effort utilizing telemedicine curriculum data gathered by the Liaison Committee on Medical Education. This outreach included 70 institutions and yielded 7 interviews, 4 peer-reviewed research papers, 6 online documents, and 3 completed survey responses. RESULTS:There is an emerging, rich international body of learning being generated in the field of telemedicine training in undergraduate medical education. The integration of telemedicine-based lessons, ethics case-studies, clinical rotations, and even teleassessments are being found to offer great value for medical schools and their students. Most medical students find such training to be a valuable component of their preclinical and clinical education for a variety of reasons, which include fostering greater familiarity with telemedicine and increased comfort with applying telemedical approaches in their future careers. CONCLUSIONS:These competencies are increasingly important in tackling the challenges facing health care in the 21st century, and further implementation of telemedicine curricula into undergraduate medical education is highly merited.

Dataset Information

Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review.

Objectives

Design

Methods

Results

Publications

Methods used to conduct and report Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons published in the medical literature: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets