Volume 7, Issue 1
Original Article

A Bayesian missing data framework for generalized multiple outcome mixed treatment comparisons

Hwanhee Hong

Corresponding Author

Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, 21205 USA

Correspondence to: Hwanhee Hong, Department of Mental Health, Johns Hopkins University, Hampton House 810, 624 N. Broadway, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

E‐mail: hhong@jhu.edu

Search for more papers by this author
Haitao Chu

Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55405 USA

Search for more papers by this author
Jing Zhang

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, 20742 USA

Search for more papers by this author
Bradley P. Carlin

Division of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55405 USA

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 04 November 2015
Citations: 41

Abstract

Bayesian statistical approaches to mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are becoming more popular because of their flexibility and interpretability. Many randomized clinical trials report multiple outcomes with possible inherent correlations. Moreover, MTC data are typically sparse (although richer than standard meta‐analysis, comparing only two treatments), and researchers often choose study arms based upon which treatments emerge as superior in previous trials. In this paper, we summarize existing hierarchical Bayesian methods for MTCs with a single outcome and introduce novel Bayesian approaches for multiple outcomes simultaneously, rather than in separate MTC analyses. We do this by incorporating partially observed data and its correlation structure between outcomes through contrast‐based and arm‐based parameterizations that consider any unobserved treatment arms as missing data to be imputed. We also extend the model to apply to all types of generalized linear model outcomes, such as count or continuous responses. We offer a simulation study under various missingness mechanisms (e.g., missing completely at random, missing at random, and missing not at random) providing evidence that our models outperform existing models in terms of bias, mean squared error, and coverage probability then illustrate our methods with a real MTC dataset. We close with a discussion of our results, several contentious issues in MTC analysis, and a few avenues for future methodological development. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 41

  • Bayesian network meta-analysis of multiple outcomes in dental research, Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice, 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101403, (101403), (2020).
  • The impact of covariance priors on arm‐based Bayesian network meta‐analyses with binary outcomes, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8580, 39, 22, (2883-2900), (2020).
  • A Bayesian multivariate meta‐analysis of prevalence data, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8593, 39, 23, (3105-3119), (2020).
  • Fragility index of network meta-analysis with application to smoking cessation data, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.003, 127, (29-39), (2020).
  • Acute kidney injury following the concurrent administration of antipseudomonal beta-lactams and vancomycin: a network meta-analysis, Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 10.1016/j.cmi.2020.03.019, (2020).
  • Association of adverse events and associated cost with efficacy for approved relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma regimens: A Bayesian network meta‐analysis of phase 3 randomized controlled trials, Cancer, 10.1002/cncr.32831, 126, 12, (2791-2801), (2020).
  • Application of network meta-analysis in the field of physical activity and health promotion, Journal of Sport and Health Science, 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.07.011, (2020).
  • Efficacy and safety of frontline regimens for older transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma: A systematic review and meta-analysis, Journal of Geriatric Oncology, 10.1016/j.jgo.2020.05.013, (2020).
  • A Bayesian approach to discrete multiple outcome network meta-analysis, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0231876, 15, 4, (e0231876), (2020).
  • A variance shrinkage method improves arm-based Bayesian network meta-analysis, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280220945731, (096228022094573), (2020).
  • A historical review of publication bias, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1452, 0, 0, (2020).
  • Component network meta‐analysis compared to a matching method in a disconnected network: A case study, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201900339, 0, 0, (2020).
  • Network meta‐analysis of multicomponent interventions, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201800167, 62, 3, (808-821), (2019).
  • Simulation and data‐generation for random‐effects network meta‐analysis of binary outcome, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8193, 38, 17, (3288-3303), (2019).
  • Bivariate network meta‐analysis for surrogate endpoint evaluation, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8187, 38, 18, (3322-3341), (2019).
  • Incorporating single‐arm evidence into a network meta‐analysis using aggregate level matching: Assessing the impact, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8139, 38, 14, (2505-2523), (2019).
  • Modelling time‐course relationships with multiple treatments: Model‐based network meta‐analysis for continuous summary outcomes, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1351, 10, 2, (267-286), (2019).
  • Evaluating network meta‐analysis and inconsistency using arm‐parameterized model in structural equation modeling, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1344, 10, 2, (240-254), (2019).
  • A comparison of arm‐based and contrast‐based models for network meta‐analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8360, 38, 27, (5197-5213), (2019).
  • Bayesian hierarchical methods for meta-analysis combining randomized-controlled and single-arm studies, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280218754928, 28, 5, (1293-1310), (2018).
  • Bayesian inference for network meta-regression using multivariate random effects with applications to cholesterol lowering drugs, Biostatistics, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxy014, 20, 3, (499-516), (2018).
  • Power and commensurate priors for synthesizing aggregate and individual patient level data in network meta‐analysis, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C (Applied Statistics), 10.1111/rssc.12275, 67, 4, (1047-1069), (2018).
  • Quantifying and presenting overall evidence in network meta‐analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7905, 37, 28, (4114-4125), (2018).
  • Multivariate network meta‐analysis to mitigate the effects of outcome reporting bias, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7815, 37, 22, (3254-3266), (2018).
  • Estimating the variance for heterogeneity in arm‐based network meta‐analysis, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1857, 17, 3, (264-277), (2018).
  • References, Network Meta‐Analysis for Decision Making, 10.1002/9781118951651, (409-445), (2018).
  • Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach, BMC Cancer, 10.1186/s12885-018-4163-6, 18, 1, (2018).
  • Bayesian methods for dealing with missing data problems, Journal of the Korean Statistical Society, 10.1016/j.jkss.2018.03.002, 47, 3, (297-313), (2018).
  • Comparative Effectiveness of Published Interventions for Elderly Fall Prevention: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10.3390/ijerph15030498, 15, 3, (498), (2018).
  • A matrix‐based method of moments for fitting multivariate network meta‐analysis models with multiple outcomes and random inconsistency effects, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12762, 74, 2, (548-556), (2017).
  • A Bayesian hierarchical model for network meta-analysis of multiple diagnostic tests, Biostatistics, 10.1093/biostatistics/kxx025, 19, 1, (87-102), (2017).
  • Network meta‐analysis of disconnected networks: How dangerous are random baseline treatment effects?, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1256, 8, 4, (465-474), (2017).
  • Diagnostics for generalized linear hierarchical models in network meta‐analysis, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1246, 8, 3, (333-342), (2017).
  • Using structural equation modeling for network meta-analysis, BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10.1186/s12874-017-0390-9, 17, 1, (2017).
  • An investigation of the impact of using different methods for network meta-analysis: a protocol for an empirical evaluation, Systematic Reviews, 10.1186/s13643-017-0511-x, 6, 1, (2017).
  • 12. Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis for Multiple Endpoints, Methods in Comparative Effectiveness Research, 10.1201/9781315159409, (385-408), (2017).
  • Hierarchical Bayesian approaches for detecting inconsistency in network meta‐analysis, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6938, 35, 20, (3524-3536), (2016).
  • ANOVA model for network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data, Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 10.1177/0962280216669182, (096228021666918), (2016).
  • The Impact of Excluding Trials from Network Meta-Analyses – An Empirical Study, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0165889, 11, 12, (e0165889), (2016).
  • Absolute or relative effects? Arm‐based synthesis of trial data, Research Synthesis Methods, 10.1002/jrsm.1184, 7, 1, (23-28), (2015).
  • Industry-funded clinical trials: Beneficial or harmful?, Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs, 10.3109/10601333.2015.1078809, 32, 4, (109-112), (2015).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.