Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

One of the main advantages of Bayesian analyses of clinical trials is their ability to formally incorporate skepticism about large treatment effects through the use of informative priors. We conducted a simulation study to assess the performance of informative normal, Student-t, and beta distributions in estimating relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) for binary outcomes. Simulation scenarios varied the prior standard deviation (SD; level of skepticism of large treatment effects), outcome rate in the control group, true treatment effect, and sample size. We compared the priors with regards to bias, mean squared error (MSE), and coverage of 95% credible intervals. Simulation results show that the prior SD influenced the posterior to a greater degree than the particular distributional form of the prior. For RR, priors with a 95% interval of 0.50–2.0 performed well in terms of bias, MSE, and coverage under most scenarios. For OR, priors with a wider 95% interval of 0.23–4.35 had good performance. We recommend the use of informative priors that exclude implausibly large treatment effects in analyses of clinical trials, particularly for major outcomes such as mortality.

Keywords

Bayesian analysis informative priors large treatment effects binary data clinical trial robust priors

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Peto

Collins

Gray

. Large-scale randomized evidence: Large, simple trials and overviews of trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 23–40.

Yusuf

. Meta-analysis of randomized trials: Looking back and looking ahead. Control Clin Trials 1997; 18: 594–601.

Yusuf

Flather

. Magnesium in acute myocardial infarction. BMJ 1995; 310: 751–752.

Pereira

Horwitz

Ioannidis

. Empirical evaluation of very large treatment effects of medical interventions. JAMA 2012; 308: 1676–1684.

Ioannidis

JPA

. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 2008; 19: 640–648.

Pereira

Ioannidis

JPA

. Statistically significant meta-analyses of clinical trials have modest credibility and inflated effects. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1060–1069.

Spiegelhalter

Abrams

Myles

. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health-care evaluation, Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.

Gelman

Jakulin

Pittau

et al.

A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Ann Appl Stat 2008; 2: 1360–1383.

Hanson

Branscum

Johnson

. Informative g-priors for logistic regression. Bayesian Anal 2014; 9: 597–612.

10.

Fúquene

Cook

Pericchi

. A case for robust Bayesian priors with applications to clinical trials. Bayesian Anal 2009; 4: 817–846.

11.

Berry

. Bayesian clinical trials. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2006; 5: 27–36.

12.

Lambert

Sutton

Burton

et al.

How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using winbugs. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2401–2401.

13.

Greenland

. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research. II. Regression analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2007; 36: 195–202.

14.

Greenland

. Putting background information about relative risks into conjugate prior distributions. Biometrics 2001; 57: 663–670.

15.

Greenland

. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research: I. Foundations and basic methods. Int J Epidemiol 2006; 35: 765–775.

16.

Greenland

Poole

. Living with p values: resurrecting a Bayesian perspective on frequentist statistics. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 62–68.

17.

Gelman

. P values and statistical practice. Epidemiology 2013; 24: 69–72.

18.

Higgins JP and Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org.

19.

Sinclair

Haughton

Bracken

et al.

Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapies. Clin Perinatol 2003; 30: 285–304.

20.

Guyatt

Oxman

Sultan

et al.

GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 1311–1316.

21.

Morris

Tyson

et al.

Aggressive vs. conservative phototherapy for infants with extremely low birth weight. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 1885–1896.

22.

Tyson

Pedroza

Langer

et al.

Does aggressive phototherapy increase mortality while decreasing profound impairment among the smallest and sickest newborns?

J Perinatol 2012; 32: 677–684.

23.

Higgins

JPT

Spiegelhalter

. Being sceptical about meta-analyses: a Bayesian perspective on magnesium trials in myocardial infarction. Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31: 96–104.

24.

Wijeysundera

Austin

Hux

et al.

Bayesian statistical inference enhances the interpretation of contemporary randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 13–21.

25.

Turner

Omar

Thompson

. Bayesian methods of analysis for cluster randomized trials with binary outcome data. Stat Med 2001; 20: 453–472.

26.

Spiegelhalter

Freedman

Parmar

MKB

. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 1994; 157: 357–416.

27.

Gelman A. Informative priors for logistic regression. http://andrewgelman.com/2014/11/05/firth-bias-correction-penalization-weakly-informative-priors-case-log-f-priors-logistic-related-regressions (accessed April 2015).

28.

R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, 2015. http://www.R-project.org/.

29.

Thomas

O’Hara

Ligges

et al.

Making BUGS Open. R News 2006; 6: 12–17.

30.

Brooks

Gelman

. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Comp Graph Stat 1998; 7: 434–455.

31.

Gelman

Carlin

Stern

et al.

Bayesian data analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2014.

32.

Shankaran

Laptook

Ehrenkranz

et al.

Whole-body hypothermia for neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1574–1584.

33.

Jacobs

Berg

Hunt

et al.

Cooling for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 1: CD003311–CD003311.

34.

Teo

Yusuf

Collins

et al.

Effects of intravenous magnesium in suspected acute myocardial infarction: overview of randomised trials. BMJ 1991; 303: 1499–1503.

35.

(Fourth International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group

ISIS-4

. ISIS-4: A randomised factorial trial assessing early oral captopril, oral mononitrate, and intravenous magnesium sulphate in 58,050 patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Lancet 1995; 345: 669–685.

36.

Sterne

JAC

Sutton

Ioannidis

JPA

et al.

Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d4002–d4002.

37.

Kass

Greenhouse

. Investigating therapies of potentially great benefit: ECMO: Comment: A Bayesian perspective. Stat Sci 1989; 4: 310–317.

38.

Fayers

Ashby

Parmar

. Bayesian data monitoring in clinical trials. Stat Med 1997; 16: 1413–1430.

39.

Gelman A and Su YS. arm: Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models, 2015. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=arm. R package version 1.8-03.

40.

Schechtman

. Odds ratio, relative risk, absolute risk reduction, and the number needed to treat–which of these should we use? Value Health 2002; 5: 431–436.

41.

Laupacis

Sackett

Roberts

. An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. N Engl J Med 1988; 318: 1728–1733.

42.

Ayton

. Number needed to treat. Risk measures expressed as frequencies may have a more rational response. BMJ 1995; 310: 1269–1269.

43.

Greenland

. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol 1987; 125: 761–768.

44.

Cook

Sackett

. The number needed to treat: A clinically useful measure of treatment effect. BMJ 1995; 310: 452–454.

45.

Sinclair

Bracken

. Clinically useful measures of effect in binary analyses of randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 881–889.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB

Performance of informative priors skeptical of large treatment effects in clinical trials: A simulation study

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material