• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

用于考虑证据综合中偏差项不确定性的稳健贝叶斯偏差调整随机效应模型。

A robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model for consideration of uncertainty about bias terms in evidence synthesis.

机构信息

Centre for Environmental and Climate Science, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

Department of Biology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.

出版信息

Stat Med. 2022 Jul 30;41(17):3365-3379. doi: 10.1002/sim.9422. Epub 2022 Apr 29.

DOI:10.1002/sim.9422
PMID:35487762
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9544319/
Abstract

Meta-analysis is a statistical method used in evidence synthesis for combining, analyzing and summarizing studies that have the same target endpoint and aims to derive a pooled quantitative estimate using fixed and random effects models or network models. Differences among included studies depend on variations in target populations (ie, heterogeneity) and variations in study quality due to study design and execution (ie, bias). The risk of bias is usually assessed qualitatively using critical appraisal, and quantitative bias analysis can be used to evaluate the influence of bias on the quantity of interest. We propose a way to consider ignorance or ambiguity in how to quantify bias terms in a bias analysis by characterizing bias with imprecision (as bounds on probability) and use robust Bayesian analysis to estimate the overall effect. Robust Bayesian analysis is here seen as Bayesian updating performed over a set of coherent probability distributions, where the set emerges from a set of bias terms. We show how the set of bias terms can be specified based on judgments on the relative magnitude of biases (ie, low, unclear, and high risk of bias) in one or several domains of the Cochrane's risk of bias table. For illustration, we apply a robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model to an already published meta-analysis on the effect of Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

摘要

荟萃分析是一种在证据综合中使用的统计方法,用于合并、分析和总结具有相同目标终点的研究,并使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型或网络模型得出汇总的定量估计。纳入研究之间的差异取决于目标人群的变化(即异质性)和由于研究设计和实施而导致的研究质量变化(即偏倚)。偏倚风险通常使用批判性评价进行定性评估,而定量偏倚分析可用于评估偏倚对感兴趣数量的影响。我们提出了一种方法,通过用不精确性(概率边界)来描述偏倚,来考虑在偏倚分析中如何量化偏倚项的不确定性或模糊性,并使用稳健贝叶斯分析来估计总体效果。稳健贝叶斯分析在这里被视为在一组连贯的概率分布上进行的贝叶斯更新,其中该组是从一组偏倚项中产生的。我们展示了如何根据对一个或几个 Cochrane 偏倚风险表领域中的偏倚相对大小的判断(即低、不清楚和高偏倚风险)来指定偏倚项集。为了说明这一点,我们将稳健贝叶斯偏倚调整的随机效应模型应用于已发表的 Cochrane 系统评价数据库中关于利妥昔单抗治疗类风湿关节炎的荟萃分析。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/74145015874a/SIM-41-3365-g021.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/e19f3cfbecfa/SIM-41-3365-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/d1c09086338a/SIM-41-3365-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/c25f620867d1/SIM-41-3365-g012.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/74145015874a/SIM-41-3365-g021.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/e19f3cfbecfa/SIM-41-3365-g013.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/d1c09086338a/SIM-41-3365-g005.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/c25f620867d1/SIM-41-3365-g012.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0b46/9544319/74145015874a/SIM-41-3365-g021.jpg

相似文献

1
A robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model for consideration of uncertainty about bias terms in evidence synthesis.用于考虑证据综合中偏差项不确定性的稳健贝叶斯偏差调整随机效应模型。
Stat Med. 2022 Jul 30;41(17):3365-3379. doi: 10.1002/sim.9422. Epub 2022 Apr 29.
2
A Bayesian bias-adjusted random-effects model for synthesizing evidence from randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions.贝叶斯偏倚调整的随机效应模型,用于综合来自干预措施的随机对照试验和非随机研究的证据。
J Evid Based Med. 2024 Sep;17(3):550-558. doi: 10.1111/jebm.12633. Epub 2024 Aug 6.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4
[Meta-analysis of the Italian studies on short-term effects of air pollution].[意大利关于空气污染短期影响研究的荟萃分析]
Epidemiol Prev. 2001 Mar-Apr;25(2 Suppl):1-71.
5
Response to letter to the editor from Dr Rahman Shiri: The challenging topic of suicide across occupational groups.回复拉赫曼·希里博士的来信:职业群体中的自杀这一具有挑战性的话题。
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2018 Jan 1;44(1):108-110. doi: 10.5271/sjweh.3698. Epub 2017 Dec 8.
6
7
Robust Decision Analysis under Severe Uncertainty and Ambiguous Tradeoffs: An Invasive Species Case Study.严重不确定性和模糊权衡下的稳健决策分析:入侵物种案例研究。
Risk Anal. 2021 Nov;41(11):2140-2153. doi: 10.1111/risa.13722. Epub 2021 May 5.
8
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability.对 Cochrane 系统评价中损耗偏倚的评估高度不一致,从而阻碍了试验之间的可比性。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 5;19(1):76. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0717-9.
9
An empirical comparison of Bayesian modelling strategies for missing binary outcome data in network meta-analysis.贝叶斯建模策略在网络荟萃分析中缺失二分类结局数据的实证比较。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Apr 24;19(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12874-019-0731-y.
10
Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.成人注意缺陷多动障碍的药物治疗:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。
PLoS One. 2020 Oct 21;15(10):e0240584. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0240584. eCollection 2020.

引用本文的文献

1
Bayesian Posterior Interval Calibration to Improve the Interpretability of Observational Studies.贝叶斯后验区间校准以提高观察性研究的可解释性
Stat Anal Data Min. 2024 Dec;17(6). doi: 10.1002/sam.11715. Epub 2024 Dec 4.
2
Integrating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions to assess the effect of rare events: a Bayesian re-analysis of two meta-analyses.整合干预措施的随机对照试验和非随机研究,以评估罕见事件的效果:对两项荟萃分析的贝叶斯重新分析。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2024 Sep 27;24(1):219. doi: 10.1186/s12874-024-02347-7.

本文引用的文献

1
Robust Decision Analysis under Severe Uncertainty and Ambiguous Tradeoffs: An Invasive Species Case Study.严重不确定性和模糊权衡下的稳健决策分析:入侵物种案例研究。
Risk Anal. 2021 Nov;41(11):2140-2153. doi: 10.1111/risa.13722. Epub 2021 May 5.
2
A bias-corrected meta-analysis model for combining, studies of different types and quality.一种用于合并不同类型和质量研究的偏倚校正的荟萃分析模型。
Biom J. 2021 Feb;63(2):406-422. doi: 10.1002/bimj.201900376. Epub 2020 Sep 30.
3
Adjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis: combining data-based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment.
在荟萃分析中调整试验结果以应对偏倚:将基于数据的偏倚证据与详细的试验评估相结合。
J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2020 Jan;183(1):193-209. doi: 10.1111/rssa.12485. Epub 2019 Jul 1.
4
Comparison of bias adjustment methods in meta-analysis suggests that quality effects modeling may have less limitations than other approaches.荟萃分析中偏倚调整方法的比较表明,质量效应建模可能比其他方法的限制更少。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Jan;117:36-45. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.010. Epub 2019 Sep 18.
5
Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science.传达关于事实、数字和科学的不确定性。
R Soc Open Sci. 2019 May 8;6(5):181870. doi: 10.1098/rsos.181870. eCollection 2019 May.
6
Rituximab for rheumatoid arthritis.利妥昔单抗用于治疗类风湿关节炎。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 20;1(1):CD007356. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007356.pub2.
7
Good practices for quantitative bias analysis.定量偏倚分析的良好实践。
Int J Epidemiol. 2014 Dec;43(6):1969-85. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyu149. Epub 2014 Jul 30.
8
Comparative efficacy and safety of treatments for localised prostate cancer: an application of network meta-analysis.局限性前列腺癌治疗方法的疗效与安全性比较:网状Meta分析的应用
BMJ Open. 2014 May 15;4(5):e004285. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004285.
9
Evidence synthesis for decision making 3: heterogeneity--subgroups, meta-regression, bias, and bias-adjustment.循证决策 3:异质性——亚组、Meta 回归、偏倚和偏倚调整。
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):618-40. doi: 10.1177/0272989X13485157.
10
Evidence synthesis for decision making 2: a generalized linear modeling framework for pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.证据综合决策 2:用于随机对照试验的成对和网络荟萃分析的广义线性建模框架。
Med Decis Making. 2013 Jul;33(5):607-17. doi: 10.1177/0272989X12458724. Epub 2012 Oct 26.