Cargando…

Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment

BACKGROUND: The common frequentist approach is limited in providing investigators with appropriate measures for conducting a new trial. To answer such important questions and one has to look at Bayesian statistics. METHODS: As a worked example, we conducted a Bayesian cumulative meta-analysis to sum...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biau, David J., Boulezaz, Samuel, Casabianca, Laurent, Hamadouche, Moussa, Anract, Philippe, Chevret, Sylvie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28830464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x
_version_ 1783258822210486272
author Biau, David J.
Boulezaz, Samuel
Casabianca, Laurent
Hamadouche, Moussa
Anract, Philippe
Chevret, Sylvie
author_facet Biau, David J.
Boulezaz, Samuel
Casabianca, Laurent
Hamadouche, Moussa
Anract, Philippe
Chevret, Sylvie
author_sort Biau, David J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The common frequentist approach is limited in providing investigators with appropriate measures for conducting a new trial. To answer such important questions and one has to look at Bayesian statistics. METHODS: As a worked example, we conducted a Bayesian cumulative meta-analysis to summarize the benefit of patient-specific instrumentation on the alignment of total knee replacement from previously published evidence. Data were sourced from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. All randomised controlled comparisons of the effect of patient-specific instrumentation on the coronal alignment of total knee replacement were included. The main outcome was the risk difference measured by the proportion of failures in the control group minus the proportion of failures in the experimental group. Through Bayesian statistics, we estimated cumulatively over publication time of the trial results: the posterior probabilities that the risk difference was more than 5 and 10%; the posterior probabilities that given the results of all previous published trials an additional fictive trial would achieve a risk difference of at least 5%; and the predictive probabilities that observed failure rate differ from 5% across arms. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were identified including 1092 patients, 554 in the experimental group and 538 in the control group. The cumulative mean risk difference was 0.5% (95% CrI: −5.7%; +4.5%). The posterior probabilities that the risk difference be superior to 5 and 10% was less than 5% after trial #4 and trial #2 respectively. The predictive probability that the difference in failure rates was at least 5% dropped from 45% after the first trial down to 11% after the 13th. Last, only unrealistic trial design parameters could change the overall evidence accumulated to date. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian probabilities are readily understandable when discussing the relevance of performing a new trial. It provides investigators the current probability that an experimental treatment be superior to a reference treatment. In case a trial is designed, it also provides the predictive probability that this new trial will reach the targeted risk difference in failure rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42015024176. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5568256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55682562017-08-29 Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment Biau, David J. Boulezaz, Samuel Casabianca, Laurent Hamadouche, Moussa Anract, Philippe Chevret, Sylvie BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: The common frequentist approach is limited in providing investigators with appropriate measures for conducting a new trial. To answer such important questions and one has to look at Bayesian statistics. METHODS: As a worked example, we conducted a Bayesian cumulative meta-analysis to summarize the benefit of patient-specific instrumentation on the alignment of total knee replacement from previously published evidence. Data were sourced from Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases. All randomised controlled comparisons of the effect of patient-specific instrumentation on the coronal alignment of total knee replacement were included. The main outcome was the risk difference measured by the proportion of failures in the control group minus the proportion of failures in the experimental group. Through Bayesian statistics, we estimated cumulatively over publication time of the trial results: the posterior probabilities that the risk difference was more than 5 and 10%; the posterior probabilities that given the results of all previous published trials an additional fictive trial would achieve a risk difference of at least 5%; and the predictive probabilities that observed failure rate differ from 5% across arms. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were identified including 1092 patients, 554 in the experimental group and 538 in the control group. The cumulative mean risk difference was 0.5% (95% CrI: −5.7%; +4.5%). The posterior probabilities that the risk difference be superior to 5 and 10% was less than 5% after trial #4 and trial #2 respectively. The predictive probability that the difference in failure rates was at least 5% dropped from 45% after the first trial down to 11% after the 13th. Last, only unrealistic trial design parameters could change the overall evidence accumulated to date. CONCLUSIONS: Bayesian probabilities are readily understandable when discussing the relevance of performing a new trial. It provides investigators the current probability that an experimental treatment be superior to a reference treatment. In case a trial is designed, it also provides the predictive probability that this new trial will reach the targeted risk difference in failure rates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42015024176. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-08-22 /pmc/articles/PMC5568256/ /pubmed/28830464 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Biau, David J.
Boulezaz, Samuel
Casabianca, Laurent
Hamadouche, Moussa
Anract, Philippe
Chevret, Sylvie
Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title_full Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title_fullStr Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title_full_unstemmed Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title_short Using Bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
title_sort using bayesian statistics to estimate the likelihood a new trial will demonstrate the efficacy of a new treatment
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5568256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28830464
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0401-x
work_keys_str_mv AT biaudavidj usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment
AT boulezazsamuel usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment
AT casabiancalaurent usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment
AT hamadouchemoussa usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment
AT anractphilippe usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment
AT chevretsylvie usingbayesianstatisticstoestimatethelikelihoodanewtrialwilldemonstratetheefficacyofanewtreatment