Incorporating external evidence on between‐trial heterogeneity in network meta‐analysis

Abstract

In a network meta‐analysis, between‐study heterogeneity variances are often very imprecisely estimated because data are sparse, so standard errors of treatment differences can be highly unstable. External evidence can provide informative prior distributions for heterogeneity and, hence, improve inferences. We explore approaches for specifying informative priors for multiple heterogeneity variances in a network meta‐analysis. First, we assume equal heterogeneity variances across all pairwise intervention comparisons (approach 1); incorporating an informative prior for the common variance is then straightforward. Models allowing unequal heterogeneity variances are more realistic; however, care must be taken to ensure implied variance‐covariance matrices remain valid. We consider three strategies for specifying informative priors for multiple unequal heterogeneity variances. Initially, we choose different informative priors according to intervention comparison type and assume heterogeneity to be proportional across comparison types and equal within comparison type (approach 2). Next, we allow all heterogeneity variances in the network to differ, while specifying a common informative prior for each. We explore two different approaches to this: placing priors on variances and correlations separately (approach 3) or using an informative inverse Wishart distribution (approach 4). Our methods are exemplified through application to two network metaanalyses. Appropriate informative priors are obtained from previously published evidence‐based distributions for heterogeneity. Relevant prior information on between‐study heterogeneity can be incorporated into network meta‐analyses, without needing to assume equal heterogeneity across treatment comparisons. The approaches proposed will be beneficial in sparse data sets and provide more appropriate intervals for treatment differences than those based on imprecise heterogeneity estimates.

A method for assessing robustness of the results of a star-shaped network meta-analysis under the unidentifiable consistency assumption

“…Furthermore, in practice, the number of included studies in a network meta-analysis is often insufficient to precisely estimate the heterogeneity variance. In that case, we may consider informative priors for heterogeneity variance to incorporate some external evidence into the network meta-analysis model [ 40 , 41 ] in our method as an attempt to overcome this problem.…”

The impact of covariance priors on arm‐based Bayesian network meta‐analyses with binary outcomes

“…Alternatively, one may model the standard deviations of study‐specific log‐odds of different treatments as random draws from a common distribution and thus allow borrowing strength in the estimation to shrink them in a data‐dependent manner. The idea of extrapolation 38,39 could also be applied to incorporate external evidence about standard deviations. Third, as mentioned in Section 1, the T × T covariance matrix in the AB model is closely related to the CB model's ( T −1)×( T −1) covariance matrix, so we can probably apply corresponding RIW and EQ priors in the CB approach.…”

The dark side of the force: Multiplicity issues in network meta‐analysis and how to address them

“…Model I assumes a common τ for all comparisons in the network . This is a very usual assumption in NMA, but there are more general formulations . Setting τ = 0 leads to a common‐effect NMA model.…”