INSERM U1153, Paris, France.
Service de chirurgie orthopédique,Hôpital Cochin, 27 rue du faubourg Saint-Jacques, 75014, Paris, France.
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 22;17(1):128. doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x.
The common frequentist approach is limited in providing investigators with appropriate measures for conducting a new trial. To answer such important questions and one has to look at Bayesian statistics.
As a worked example, we conducted a Bayesian cumulative meta-analysis to summarize the benefit of patient-specific instrumentation on the alignment of total knee replacement from previously published evidence. Data were sourced from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. All randomised controlled comparisons of the effect of patient-specific instrumentation on the coronal alignment of total knee replacement were included. The main outcome was the risk difference measured by the proportion of failures in the control group minus the proportion of failures in the experimental group. Through Bayesian statistics, we estimated cumulatively over publication time of the trial results: the posterior probabilities that the risk difference was more than 5 and 10%; the posterior probabilities that given the results of all previous published trials an additional fictive trial would achieve a risk difference of at least 5%; and the predictive probabilities that observed failure rate differ from 5% across arms.
Thirteen trials were identified including 1092 patients, 554 in the experimental group and 538 in the control group. The cumulative mean risk difference was 0.5% (95% CrI: -5.7%; +4.5%). The posterior probabilities that the risk difference be superior to 5 and 10% was less than 5% after trial #4 and trial #2 respectively. The predictive probability that the difference in failure rates was at least 5% dropped from 45% after the first trial down to 11% after the 13th. Last, only unrealistic trial design parameters could change the overall evidence accumulated to date.
Bayesian probabilities are readily understandable when discussing the relevance of performing a new trial. It provides investigators the current probability that an experimental treatment be superior to a reference treatment. In case a trial is designed, it also provides the predictive probability that this new trial will reach the targeted risk difference in failure rates.
CRD42015024176 .
常用的频率派方法在为研究者提供进行新试验的适当措施方面存在局限性。为了回答这些重要问题,我们必须着眼于贝叶斯统计学。
作为一个实例研究,我们进行了贝叶斯累积荟萃分析,以总结来自先前发表证据的患者特异性器械对全膝关节置换术对线的益处。数据来自 Medline、Embase 和 Cochrane 数据库。所有关于患者特异性器械对全膝关节置换术冠状对线影响的随机对照比较均被纳入。主要结局是通过对照组失败比例减去实验组失败比例来衡量的风险差异。通过贝叶斯统计学,我们根据试验结果的发表时间累积估计:风险差异大于 5%和 10%的后验概率;给定所有先前发表的试验结果,一个额外的虚拟试验将达到至少 5%风险差异的后验概率;以及观察到的失败率在两个臂之间差异为 5%的预测概率。
共确定了 13 项试验,包括 1092 名患者,实验组 554 名,对照组 538 名。累积平均风险差异为 0.5%(95%可信区间:-5.7%;+4.5%)。在第 4 项和第 2 项试验后,风险差异优于 5%和 10%的后验概率分别小于 5%。在第 1 项试验后,失败率差异至少为 5%的预测概率从 45%下降到第 13 项试验后的 11%。最后,只有不切实际的试验设计参数才能改变迄今为止积累的总体证据。
在讨论进行新试验的相关性时,贝叶斯概率是易于理解的。它为研究者提供了一种新的实验治疗方法优于参考治疗方法的当前概率。如果设计了一个试验,它还提供了新试验将达到预期失败率风险差异的预测概率。
CRD42015024176 。