Dataset Information

Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Numerous meta-analyses in healthcare research combine results from only a small number of studies, for which the variance representing between-study heterogeneity is estimated imprecisely. A Bayesian approach to estimation allows external evidence on the expected magnitude of heterogeneity to be incorporated. The aim of this paper is to provide tools that improve the accessibility of Bayesian meta-analysis. We present two methods for implementing Bayesian meta-analysis, using numerical integration and importance sampling techniques. Based on 14,886 binary outcome meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, we derive a novel set of predictive distributions for the degree of heterogeneity expected in 80 settings depending on the outcomes assessed and comparisons made. These can be used as prior distributions for heterogeneity in future meta-analyses. The two methods are implemented in R, for which code is provided. Both methods produce equivalent results to standard but more complex Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches. The priors are derived as log-normal distributions for the between-study variance, applicable to meta-analyses of binary outcomes on the log odds-ratio scale. The methods are applied to two example meta-analyses, incorporating the relevant predictive distributions as prior distributions for between-study heterogeneity. We have provided resources to facilitate Bayesian meta-analysis, in a form accessible to applied researchers, which allow relevant prior information on the degree of heterogeneity to be incorporated.

SUBMITTER: Turner RM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4383649 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis.

Turner Rebecca M RM Jackson Dan D Wei Yinghui Y Thompson Simon G SG Higgins Julian P T JP

Statistics in medicine 20141205 6

Numerous meta-analyses in healthcare research combine results from only a small number of studies, for which the variance representing between-study heterogeneity is estimated imprecisely. A Bayesian approach to estimation allows external evidence on the expected magnitude of heterogeneity to be incorporated. The aim of this paper is to provide tools that improve the accessibility of Bayesian meta-analysis. We present two methods for implementing Bayesian meta-analysis, using numerical integrati ...[more]

PMID: 25475839

Similar Datasets

Project description:Multivariate random-effects meta-analysis allows the joint synthesis of correlated results from multiple studies, for example, for multiple outcomes or multiple treatment groups. In a Bayesian univariate meta-analysis of one endpoint, the importance of specifying a sensible prior distribution for the between-study variance is well understood. However, in multivariate meta-analysis, there is little guidance about the choice of prior distributions for the variances or, crucially, the between-study correlation, ?B; for the latter, researchers often use a Uniform(-1,1) distribution assuming it is vague. In this paper, an extensive simulation study and a real illustrative example is used to examine the impact of various (realistically) vague prior distributions for ?B and the between-study variances within a Bayesian bivariate random-effects meta-analysis of two correlated treatment effects. A range of diverse scenarios are considered, including complete and missing data, to examine the impact of the prior distributions on posterior results (for treatment effect and between-study correlation), amount of borrowing of strength, and joint predictive distributions of treatment effectiveness in new studies. Two key recommendations are identified to improve the robustness of multivariate meta-analysis results. First, the routine use of a Uniform(-1,1) prior distribution for ?B should be avoided, if possible, as it is not necessarily vague. Instead, researchers should identify a sensible prior distribution, for example, by restricting values to be positive or negative as indicated by prior knowledge. Second, it remains critical to use sensible (e.g. empirically based) prior distributions for the between-study variances, as an inappropriate choice can adversely impact the posterior distribution for ?B, which may then adversely affect inferences such as joint predictive probabilities. These recommendations are especially important with a small number of studies and missing data.

Project description:Statistical approaches for inferring the spatial distribution of taxa (Species Distribution Models, SDMs) commonly rely on available occurrence data, which is often clumped and geographically restricted. Although available SDM methods address some of these factors, they could be more directly and accurately modelled using a spatially-explicit approach. Software to fit models with spatial autocorrelation parameters in SDMs are now widely available, but whether such approaches for inferring SDMs aid predictions compared to other methodologies is unknown. Here, within a simulated environment using 1000 generated species' ranges, we compared the performance of two commonly used non-spatial SDM methods (Maximum Entropy Modelling, MAXENT and boosted regression trees, BRT), to a spatial Bayesian SDM method (fitted using R-INLA), when the underlying data exhibit varying combinations of clumping and geographic restriction. Finally, we tested how any recommended methodological settings designed to account for spatially non-random patterns in the data impact inference. Spatial Bayesian SDM method was the most consistently accurate method, being in the top 2 most accurate methods in 7 out of 8 data sampling scenarios. Within high-coverage sample datasets, all methods performed fairly similarly. When sampling points were randomly spread, BRT had a 1-3% greater accuracy over the other methods and when samples were clumped, the spatial Bayesian SDM method had a 4%-8% better AUC score. Alternatively, when sampling points were restricted to a small section of the true range all methods were on average 10-12% less accurate, with greater variation among the methods. Model inference under the recommended settings to account for autocorrelation was not impacted by clumping or restriction of data, except for the complexity of the spatial regression term in the spatial Bayesian model. Methods, such as those made available by R-INLA, can be successfully used to account for spatial autocorrelation in an SDM context and, by taking account of random effects, produce outputs that can better elucidate the role of covariates in predicting species occurrence. Given that it is often unclear what the drivers are behind data clumping in an empirical occurrence dataset, or indeed how geographically restricted these data are, spatially-explicit Bayesian SDMs may be the better choice when modelling the spatial distribution of target species.

Dataset Information

Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis.

Publications

Predictive distributions for between-study heterogeneity and simple methods for their application in Bayesian meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets