Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36698073›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2023

Developing a Bayesian hierarchical model for a prospective individual patient data meta-analysis with continuous monitoring.

Danni Wu, Keith S Goldfeld, Eva Petkova

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Danni WuDepartment of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA. Danni.Wu@nyulangone.org.
Keith S GoldfeldDepartment of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA.
Eva PetkovaDepartment of Population Health, New York University Grossman School of Medicine, New York, USA.

Funding

Project-005UL1TR001445 · NCATS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BREDELLA, MIRIAM ANTOINETTE, HOCHMAN, JUDITH S · 2015 to 2025
$103.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNumerous clinical trials have been initiated to find effective treatments for COVID-19. These trials have often been initiated in regions where the pandemic has already peaked. Consequently, achieving full enrollment in a single trial might require additional COVID-19 surges in the same location over several years. This has inspired us to pool individual patient data (IPD) from ongoing, paused, prematurely-terminated, or completed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in real-time, to find an effective treatment as quickly as possible in light of the pandemic crisis. However, pooling across trials introduces enormous uncertainties in study design (e.g., the number of RCTs and sample sizes might be unknown in advance). We sought to develop a versatile treatment efficacy assessment model that accounts for these uncertainties while allowing for continuous monitoring throughout the study using Bayesian monitoring techniques.

methodsWe provide a detailed look at the challenges and solutions for model development, describing the process that used extensive simulations to enable us to finalize the analysis plan. This includes establishing prior distribution assumptions, assessing and improving model convergence under different study composition scenarios, and assessing whether we can extend the model to accommodate multi-site RCTs and evaluate heterogeneous treatment effects. In addition, we recognized that we would need to assess our model for goodness-of-fit, so we explored an approach that used posterior predictive checking. Lastly, given the urgency of the research in the context of evolving pandemic, we were committed to frequent monitoring of the data to assess efficacy, and we set Bayesian monitoring rules calibrated for type 1 error rate and power.

resultsThe primary outcome is an 11-point ordinal scale. We present the operating characteristics of the proposed cumulative proportional odds model for estimating treatment effectiveness. The model can estimate the treatment's effect under enormous uncertainties in study design. We investigate to what degree the proportional odds assumption has to be violated to render the model inaccurate. We demonstrate the flexibility of a Bayesian monitoring approach by performing frequent interim analyses without increasing the probability of erroneous conclusions.

conclusionThis paper describes a translatable framework using simulation to support the design of prospective IPD meta-analyses.

Indexed as

COVID-19Adaptive Clinical Trials as TopicBayes TheoremComputer SimulationHumansResearch DesignSample SizeBayesian adaptive trial designBayesian hierarchical modelsBayesian simulationCOVID-19International consortium for data sharingProspective individual patient data meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID36698073
PMCPMC9875783

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.