No abstract

There exists a variety of situations in which a random effects meta-analysis might be undertaken using a small number of clinical trials. A problem associated with small meta-analyses is estimating the heterogeneity between trials. To overcome this problem, information from other related studies may be incorporated into the meta-analysis. A Bayesian approach to this problem is presented using data from previous meta-analyses in the same therapeutic area to formulate a prior distribution for the heterogeneity. The treatment difference parameters are given non-informative priors. Further, related trials which compare one or other of the treatments of interest with a common third treatment are included in the model to improve inference on both the heterogeneity and the treatment difference. Two approaches to estimating relative efficacy are considered, namely a general parametric approach and a method explicit to binary data. The methodology is illustrated using data from 26 clinical trials which investigate the prevention of cirrhosis using beta-blockers and sclerotherapy. Both sources of external information lead to more precise posterior distributions for all parameters, in particular that representing heterogeneity.

Meta-analysis provides a systematic and quantitative approach to the summary of results from randomized studies. Whilst many authors have published actual meta-analyses concerning specific therapeutic questions, less has been published about comprehensive methodology. This article presents a general parametric approach, which utilizes efficient score statistics and Fisher's information, and relates this to different methods suggested by previous authors. Normally distributed, binary, ordinal and survival data are considered. Both the fixed effects and random effects model for treatments are described.

Objectives To evaluate the evidence for strategies to prevent falls or fractures in residents in care homes and hospital inpatients and to investigate the effect of dementia and cognitive impairment. Design Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies grouped by intervention and setting (hospital or care home). Meta-regression to investigate the effects of dementia and of study quality and design. Data sources Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database, Clinical Trials Register, and hand searching of references from reviews and guidelines to January 2005. Results 1207 references were identified, including 115 systematic reviews, expert reviews, or guidelines. Of the 92 full papers inspected, 43 were included. Meta-analysis for multifaceted interventions in hospital (13 studies) showed a rate ratio of 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.997) for falls but no significant effect on the number of fallers or fractures. For hip protectors in care homes (11 studies) the rate ratio for hip fractures was 0.67 (0.46 to 0.98), but there was no significant effect on falls and not enough studies on fallers. For all other interventions (multifaceted interventions in care homes; removal of physical restraints in either setting; fall alarm devices in either setting; exercise in care homes; calcium/vitamin D in care homes; changes in the physical environment in either setting; medication review in hospital) meta-analysis was either unsuitable because of insufficient studies or showed no significant effect on falls, fallers, or fractures, despite strongly positive results in some individual studies. Meta-regression showed no significant association between effect size and prevalence of dementia or cognitive impairment. Conclusion There is some evidence that multifaceted interventions in hospital reduce the number of falls and that use of hip protectors in care homes prevents hip fractures. There is insufficient evidence, however, for the effectiveness of other single interventions in hospitals or care homes or multifaceted interventions in care homes.

Meta-analyses using individual patient data are becoming increasingly common and have several advantages over meta-analyses of summary statistics. We explore the use of multilevel or hierarchical models for the meta-analysis of continuous individual patient outcome data from clinical trials. A general framework is developed which encompasses traditional meta-analysis, as well as meta-regression and the inclusion of patient-level covariates for investigation of heterogeneity. Unexplained variation in treatment differences between trials is considered as random. We focus on models with fixed trial effects, although an extension to a random effect for trial is described. The methods are illustrated on an example in Alzheimer's disease in a classical framework using SAS PROC MIXED and MLwiN, and in a Bayesian framework using BUGS. Relative merits of the three software packages for such meta-analyses are discussed, as are the assessment of model assumptions and extensions to incorporate more than two treatments.

No abstract

No abstract

Although meta-analyses are typically viewed as retrospective activities, they are increasingly being applied prospectively to provide up-to-date evidence on specific research questions. When meta-analyses are updated account should be taken of the possibility of false-positive findings due to repeated significance tests. We discuss the use of sequential methods for meta-analyses that incorporate random effects to allow for heterogeneity across studies. We propose a method that uses an approximate semi-Bayes procedure to update evidence on the among-study variance, starting with an informative prior distribution that might be based on findings from previous meta-analyses. We compare our methods with other approaches, including the traditional method of cumulative meta-analysis, in a simulation study and observe that it has Type I and Type II error rates close to the nominal level. We illustrate the method using an example in the treatment of bleeding peptic ulcers. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.