ArticleStatistics in medicine2016
Implementing informative priors for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using meta-regression and pseudo data.
Article in Statistics in medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Topical retinoids and risk of major congenital malformations and spontaneous abortion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in drug safety and regulation · 2026Pooled it
- Empirical comparison of univariate and multivariate meta-analyses in Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth reviews with multiple binary outcomes.Research synthesis methods · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions to improve linear growth during complementary feeding period for children aged 6-24 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Gates open research · 2019Pooled it
- Interventions to improve linear growth during exclusive breastfeeding life-stage for children aged 0-6 months living in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review with network and pairwise meta-analyses.Gates open research · 2019Pooled it
- The statistical properties of RCTs and a proposal for shrinkage.Statistics in medicine · 2021Trial
- Bayes factor hypothesis testing in meta-analyses: Practical advantages and methodological considerations.Research synthesis methods · 2026Review
- Bayesian statistics: a primer for perioperative medicine clinicians.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
- Surgical and endoscopic interventions in the management of idiopathic achalasia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Risk of Bias in Network Meta-Analysis (RoB NMA) tool.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Sharing information across patient subgroups to draw conclusions from sparse treatment networks.Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift · 2024Article
- Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis in medicine.Statistics in medicine · 2021Article
- A group-specific prior distribution for effect-size heterogeneity in meta-analysis.Behavior research methods · 2020Article
- Determining optimal strategies for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: systematic review, cost-effectiveness review and network meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Article
- Taxonomy-based hierarchical analysis of natural mortality: polar and subpolar phocid seals.Ecology and evolution · 2018Article
- Article
- Implementing informative priors for heterogeneity in meta-analysis using meta-regression and pseudo data.Statistics in medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many meta-analyses combine results from only a small number of studies, a situation in which the between-study variance is imprecisely estimated when standard methods are applied. Bayesian meta-analysis allows incorporation of external evidence on heterogeneity, providing the potential for more robust inference on the effect size of interest. We present a method for performing Bayesian meta-analysis using data augmentation, in which we represent an informative conjugate prior for between-study variance by pseudo data and use meta-regression for estimation. To assist in this, we derive predictive inverse-gamma distributions for the between-study variance expected in future meta-analyses. These may serve as priors for heterogeneity in new meta-analyses. In a simulation study, we compare approximate Bayesian methods using meta-regression and pseudo data against fully Bayesian approaches based on importance sampling techniques and Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC). We compare the frequentist properties of these Bayesian methods with those of the commonly used frequentist DerSimonian and Laird procedure. The method is implemented in standard statistical software and provides a less complex alternative to standard MCMC approaches. An importance sampling approach produces almost identical results to standard MCMC approaches, and results obtained through meta-regression and pseudo data are very similar. On average, data augmentation provides closer results to MCMC, if implemented using restricted maximum likelihood estimation rather than DerSimonian and Laird or maximum likelihood estimation. The methods are applied to real datasets, and an extension to network meta-analysis is described. The proposed method facilitates Bayesian meta-analysis in a way that is accessible to applied researchers. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.