Multiparameter evidence synthesis in epidemiology and medical decision-making: current approaches

被引:109
作者
Ades, AE
Sutton, AJ
机构
[1] Univ Bristol, MRC, Hlth Serv Res Collaborat, Bristol BS8 2PR, Avon, England
[2] Univ Leicester, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England
关键词
Bayesian methods; decision-making; evidence synthesis; hierarchical models;
D O I
10.1111/j.1467-985X.2005.00377.x
中图分类号
O1 [数学]; C [社会科学总论];
学科分类号
03 ; 0303 ; 0701 ; 070101 ;
摘要
Alongside the development of meta-analysis as a tool for summarizing research literature, there is renewed interest in broader forms of quantitative synthesis that are aimed at combining evidence from different study designs or evidence on multiple parameters. These have been proposed under various headings: the confidence profile method, cross-design synthesis, hierarchical models and generalized evidence synthesis. Models that are used in health technology assessment are also referred to as representing a synthesis of evidence in a mathematical structure. Here we review alternative approaches to statistical evidence synthesis, and their implications for epidemiology and medical decision-making. The methods include hierarchical models, models informed by evidence on different functions of several parameters and models incorporating both of these features. The need to check for consistency of evidence when using these powerful methods is emphasized. We develop a rationale for evidence synthesis that is based on Bayesian decision modelling and expected value of information theory, which stresses not only the need for a lack of bias in estimates of treatment effects but also a lack of bias in assessments of uncertainty. The increasing reliance of governmental bodies like the UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence on complex evidence synthesis in decision modelling is discussed.
引用
收藏
页码:5 / 35
页数:31
相关论文
共 121 条
[101]  
2-2
[102]   Bayesian approaches to random-effects meta-analysis: A comparative study [J].
Smith, TC ;
Spiegelhalter, DJ ;
Thomas, A .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1995, 14 (24) :2685-2699
[103]   Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses [J].
Song, F ;
Altman, DG ;
Glenny, AM ;
Deeks, JJ .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2003, 326 (7387) :472-475
[104]  
Song F., 2000, Health Technol Assess, V4, P1, DOI [10.3310/hta4150, DOI 10.3310/HTA4150]
[105]   EUTROPHICATION IN PEEL INLET .2. IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL UNCERTAINTIES VIA GENERALIZED SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS [J].
SPEAR, RC ;
HORNBERGER, GM .
WATER RESEARCH, 1980, 14 (01) :43-49
[106]  
Spiegelhalter D.J., 2004, PHARM STAT, V1st, DOI [DOI 10.1002/PST.130, 10.1002/pst.130]
[107]   Bayesian approaches to multiple sources of evidence and uncertainty in complex cost-effectiveness modelling [J].
Spiegelhalter, DJ ;
Best, NG .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (23) :3687-3709
[108]   Sifting the evidence - what's wrong with significance tests? [J].
Sterne, JAC ;
Smith, GD .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7280) :226-+
[109]   Generalized synthesis of evidence and the threat of dissemination bias: the example of electronic fetal heart rate monitoring (EFM) [J].
Sutton, AJ ;
Abrams, KR ;
Jones, DR .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2002, 55 (10) :1013-1024
[110]   Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis [J].
Sutton, AJ ;
Abrams, KR .
STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2001, 10 (04) :277-303