Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26530518›Full record

ArticleStatistics in medicine2016

Bayesian meta-analytical methods to incorporate multiple surrogate endpoints in drug development process.

Sylwia Bujkiewicz, John R Thompson, Richard D Riley, Keith R Abrams

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Statistics in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. AAdvances in neural information processing systems · 2025
    Article
  9. A Review of Methods for Research Synthesis.Statistics in medicine · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Using Bayesian Evidence Synthesis Methods to Incorporate Real-World Evidence in Surrogate Endpoint Evaluation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Classifying information-sharing methods.BMC medical research methodology · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. HTA methodology and value frameworks for evaluation and policy making for cell and gene therapies.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2020
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Bayesian Multiparameter Evidence Synthesis to Inform Decision Making: A Case Study in Metastatic Hormone-Refractory Prostate Cancer.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sylwia BujkiewiczBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3003-9403
John R ThompsonGenetic Epidemiology Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.
Richard D RileyResearch Institute of Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Staffordshire, ST5 5BG, U.K.
Keith R AbramsBiostatistics Research Group, Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, U.K.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/J013595/1Medical Research Council MR/J013595/2Medical Research Council MR/L009854/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A number of meta-analytical methods have been proposed that aim to evaluate surrogate endpoints. Bivariate meta-analytical methods can be used to predict the treatment effect for the final outcome from the treatment effect estimate measured on the surrogate endpoint while taking into account the uncertainty around the effect estimate for the surrogate endpoint. In this paper, extensions to multivariate models are developed aiming to include multiple surrogate endpoints with the potential benefit of reducing the uncertainty when making predictions. In this Bayesian multivariate meta-analytic framework, the between-study variability is modelled in a formulation of a product of normal univariate distributions. This formulation is particularly convenient for including multiple surrogate endpoints and flexible for modelling the outcomes which can be surrogate endpoints to the final outcome and potentially to one another. Two models are proposed, first, using an unstructured between-study covariance matrix by assuming the treatment effects on all outcomes are correlated and second, using a structured between-study covariance matrix by assuming treatment effects on some of the outcomes are conditionally independent. While the two models are developed for the summary data on a study level, the individual-level association is taken into account by the use of the Prentice's criteria (obtained from individual patient data) to inform the within study correlations in the models. The modelling techniques are investigated using an example in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis where the disability worsening is the final outcome, while relapse rate and MRI lesions are potential surrogates to the disability progression.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalBayes TheoremBiomarkersComputer SimulationDisease ProgressionDrug DiscoveryHumansMeta-Analysis as TopicMultiple Sclerosis, Relapsing-RemittingMultivariate AnalysisBiomarkersBayesian analysismultiple outcomesmultiple sclerosismultivariate meta-analysissurrogate endpoints

Identifiers

PMID26530518
PMCPMC4950070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.