IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssc/v67y2018i1p127-144.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons meta‐analysis for correlated outcomes subject to reporting bias

Author

Listed:
  • Yulun Liu
  • Stacia M. DeSantis
  • Yong Chen

Abstract

Many randomized controlled trials report more than one primary outcome. As a result, multivariate meta‐analytic methods for the assimilation of treatment effects in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials have received increasing attention in the literature. These methods show promise with respect to bias reduction and efficiency gain compared with univariate meta‐analysis. However, most methods for multivariate meta‐analysis have focused on pairwise treatment comparisons (i.e. when the number of treatments is 2). Current methods for mixed treatment comparisons meta‐analysis (i.e. when the number of treatments is more than 2) have focused on univariate or, very recently, bivariate outcomes. To broaden their application, we propose a framework for mixed treatment comparisons meta‐analysis of multivariate (two or more) outcomes where the correlations between multivariate outcomes within and between studies are accounted for through copulas, and the joint modelling of multivariate random effects respectively. We consider a Bayesian hierarchical model using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for estimation. An important feature of the framework proposed is that it allows for borrowing of information across correlated outcomes. We show via simulation that our approach reduces the effect of outcome reporting bias in a variety of missing outcome scenarios. We apply the method to a systematic review of randomized controlled trials of pharmacological treatments for alcohol dependence, which tends to report multiple outcomes potentially subject to outcome reporting bias.

Suggested Citation

  • Yulun Liu & Stacia M. DeSantis & Yong Chen, 2018. "Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons meta‐analysis for correlated outcomes subject to reporting bias," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 67(1), pages 127-144, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssc:v:67:y:2018:i:1:p:127-144
    DOI: 10.1111/rssc.12220
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12220
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/rssc.12220?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
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:jorssc:v:67:y:2018:i:1:p:127-144. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    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.