integrating clinicians’ opinion in the bayesian meta-analysis of observational studies: the case of risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people

Clicks: 182
ID: 256712
2013
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #19 of 28 articles by views in advances in urology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract

Background: despite the widespread application of Bayesian methods in meta-analysis, the incorporation of clinical informative priors based upon expert opinion is rare.

Methods: a questionnaire to elicit beliefs about five risk factors for falls in older people was administered to a sample of geriatricians and general practitioners (GPs). The experts were asked to provide a point estimate and upper and lower limits of each relative risk. The elicited opinions were translated into different prior distributions and included in a Bayesian meta-analysis of prospective studies. Frequentist, Bayesian non-informative and fully Bayesian approaches were compared.

Results: almost all the clinicians provided the requested information. In most cases, the variability across published studies was greater or similar to that across clinicians. Geriatricians provided more consistent estimates than GPs. When fewer studies were available, the use of the informative prior provided by geriatricians reduced the width of the credibility interval with respect to the frequentist or Bayesian non-informative approaches. Enthusiastic and skeptical priors led to results strongly driven by the prior distribution.

Conclusions: this study presents a feasible method for belief elicitation and Bayesian priors’ assessment. The inclusion of external information showed to be useful when only few and/or heterogeneous studies were available from the literature.

Reference Key
deandrea2013epidemiologyintegrating Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Silvia Deandrea;Eva Negri;Fabrizio Ruggeri
Journal advances in urology
Year 2013
DOI
10.2427/8909
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.