Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorRhodes, K M
dc.contributor.authorSavović, J
dc.contributor.authorElbers, R
dc.contributor.authorJones, H E
dc.contributor.authorHiggins, J P T
dc.contributor.authorSterne, J A C
dc.contributor.authorWelton, N J
dc.contributor.authorTurner, R M
dc.date.accessioned2020-01-28T02:37:06Z
dc.date.available2020-01-28T02:37:06Z
dc.date.issued2019-07-01
dc.identifier.issn0964-1998
dc.identifier.other31857745
dc.identifier.otherPMC6916311
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/301366
dc.description.abstractFlaws in the conduct of randomized trials can lead to biased estimation of the intervention effect. Methods for adjustment of within-trial biases in meta-analysis include the use of empirical evidence from an external collection of meta-analyses, and the use of expert opinion informed by the assessment of detailed trial information. Our aim is to present methods to combine these two approaches to gain the advantages of both. We make use of the risk of bias information that is routinely available in Cochrane reviews, by obtaining empirical distributions for the bias associated with particular bias profiles (combinations of risk of bias judgements). We propose three methods: a formal combination of empirical evidence and opinion in a Bayesian analysis; asking experts to give an opinion on bias informed by both summary trial information and a bias distribution from the empirical evidence, either numerically or by selecting areas of the empirical distribution. The methods are demonstrated through application to two example binary outcome meta-analyses. Bias distributions based on opinion informed by trial information alone were most dispersed on average, and those based on opinions obtained by selecting areas of the empirical distribution were narrowest. Although the three methods for combining empirical evidence with opinion vary in ease and speed of implementation, they yielded similar results in the two examples.
dc.languageeng
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourcenlmid: 9001406
dc.subjectElicitation
dc.subjectRandomized controlled trials
dc.subjectBias
dc.subjectMeta‐analysis
dc.subjectMeta‐epidemiology
dc.titleAdjusting trial results for biases in meta-analysis: combining data-based evidence on bias with detailed trial assessment.
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2020-01-28T02:37:05Z
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.48447
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1111/rssa.12485
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidSavović, J [0000-0002-2861-0578]
dc.contributor.orcidJones, H E [0000-0002-4265-2854]
dc.contributor.orcidSterne, J A C [0000-0001-8496-6053]
dc.contributor.orcidWelton, N J [0000-0003-2198-3205]


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International