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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |