IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0281791.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of Bayesian methods for incorporating adult clinical trial data to improve certainty of treatment effect estimates in children

Author

Listed:
  • Ruth Walker
  • Bob Phillips
  • Sofia Dias

Abstract

There are challenges associated with recruiting children to take part in randomised clinical trials and as a result, compared to adults, in many disease areas we are less certain about which treatments are most safe and effective. This can lead to weaker recommendations about which treatments to prescribe in practice. However, it may be possible to ‘borrow strength’ from adult evidence to improve our understanding of which treatments work best in children, and many different statistical methods are available to conduct these analyses. In this paper we discuss four Bayesian methods for extrapolating adult clinical trial evidence to children. Using an exemplar dataset, we compare the effect of their modelling assumptions on the estimated treatment effect and associated heterogeneity. These modelling assumptions range from adult evidence being completely generalisable to being completely unrelated to the children’s evidence. We finally discuss the appropriateness of these modelling assumptions in the context of estimating treatment effect in children.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruth Walker & Bob Phillips & Sofia Dias, 2023. "Comparison of Bayesian methods for incorporating adult clinical trial data to improve certainty of treatment effect estimates in children," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-11, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0281791
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281791
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281791
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281791&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0281791?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:plo:pone00:0281791. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.