Bayesian hypothesis testing and estimation under the marginalized random-effects meta-analysis model

被引:0
|
作者
Robbie C. M. van Aert
Joris Mulder
机构
[1] Tilburg University,Department of Methodology and Statistics
来源
关键词
Bayes factor; Meta-analysis; Random-effects model; Heterogeneity;
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Meta-analysis methods are used to synthesize results of multiple studies on the same topic. The most frequently used statistical model in meta-analysis is the random-effects model containing parameters for the overall effect, between-study variance in primary study’s true effect size, and random effects for the study-specific effects. We propose Bayesian hypothesis testing and estimation methods using the marginalized random-effects meta-analysis (MAREMA) model where the study-specific true effects are regarded as nuisance parameters which are integrated out of the model. We propose using a flat prior distribution on the overall effect size in case of estimation and a proper unit information prior for the overall effect size in case of hypothesis testing. For the between-study variance (which can attain negative values under the MAREMA model), a proper uniform prior is placed on the proportion of total variance that can be attributed to between-study variability. Bayes factors are used for hypothesis testing that allow testing point and one-sided hypotheses. The proposed methodology has several attractive properties. First, the proposed MAREMA model encompasses models with a zero, negative, and positive between-study variance, which enables testing a zero between-study variance as it is not a boundary problem. Second, the methodology is suitable for default Bayesian meta-analyses as it requires no prior information about the unknown parameters. Third, the proposed Bayes factors can even be used in the extreme case when only two studies are available because Bayes factors are not based on large sample theory. We illustrate the developed methods by applying it to two meta-analyses and introduce easy-to-use software in the R package BFpack to compute the proposed Bayes factors.
引用
收藏
页码:55 / 69
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] BAYESIAN HIERARCHICAL RANDOM-EFFECTS META-ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PHASE I CLINICAL TRIALS
    Lin, Ruitao
    Shi, Haolun
    Yin, Guosheng
    Thali, Peter F.
    Yuan, Ying
    Flowers, Christopher R.
    ANNALS OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2022, 16 (04): : 2481 - 2504
  • [32] The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective
    Kruschke, John K.
    Liddell, Torrin M.
    PSYCHONOMIC BULLETIN & REVIEW, 2018, 25 (01) : 178 - 206
  • [33] The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective
    John K. Kruschke
    Torrin M. Liddell
    Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2018, 25 : 178 - 206
  • [34] Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis
    Hedges, LV
    Vevea, JL
    PSYCHOLOGICAL METHODS, 1998, 3 (04) : 486 - 504
  • [35] The interpretation of random-effects meta-analysis in decision models
    Ades, AE
    Lu, G
    Higgins, JPT
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2005, 25 (06) : 646 - 654
  • [36] Assessing the amount of heterogeneity in random-effects meta-analysis
    Knapp, G
    Biggerstaff, BJ
    Hartung, J
    BIOMETRICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 48 (02) : 271 - 285
  • [37] A re-evaluation of random-effects meta-analysis
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    Thompson, Simon G.
    Spiegelhalter, David J.
    JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL STATISTICAL SOCIETY SERIES A-STATISTICS IN SOCIETY, 2009, 172 : 137 - 159
  • [38] Comparison of two random-effects methods of meta-analysis
    Hall, SM
    Brannick, MT
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY, 2002, 87 (02) : 377 - 389
  • [39] Heterogeneity and study size in random-effects meta-analysis
    Bowater, Russell J.
    Escarela, Gabriel
    JOURNAL OF APPLIED STATISTICS, 2013, 40 (01) : 2 - 16
  • [40] Comments on 'Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis'
    Imberger, Georgina
    Gluud, Christian
    Wetterslev, Jorn
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2011, 30 (24) : 2965 - 2966