Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (19)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Spiegelhalter, D. J
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Higgins, J. P.
Right arrow Articles by Spiegelhalter, D. J
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2002;31:96-104
© International Epidemiological Association 2002

Special Theme: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis

Being sceptical about meta-analyses: a Bayesian perspective on magnesium trials in myocardial infarction

Julian PT Higgins and David J Spiegelhalter

MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK

Dr Higgins, MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Robinson Way, Cambridge CB2 2SR, UK. E-mail: julian.higgins{at}mrc-bsu.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

Background There has been extensive discussion of the apparent conflict between meta-analyses and a mega-trial investigating the benefits of intravenous magnesium following myocardial infarction, in which the early trial results have been said to be ‘too good to be true’.

Methods We apply Bayesian methods of meta-analysis to the trials available before and after the publication of the ISIS-4 results. We show how scepticism can be formally incorporated into an analysis as a Bayesian prior distribution, and how Bayesian meta-analysis models allow appropriate exploration of hypotheses that the treatment effect depends on the size of the trial or the risk in the control group.

Results Adoption of a sceptical prior would have led early enthusiasm for magnesium to be suitably tempered, but only if combined with a random effects meta-analysis, rather than the fixed effect analysis that was actually conducted.

Conclusions We argue that neither a fixed effect nor a random effects analysis is appropriate when the mega-trial is included. The Bayesian framework provides many possibilities for flexible exploration of clinical hypotheses, but there can be considerable sensitivity to apparently innocuous assumptions.

Keywords Bayes theorem, meta-analysis, magnesium sulphate, myocardial infarction

Accepted 6 September 2001


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Hum Reprod UpdateHome page
T. A. Gelbaya, M. Kyrgiou, and L. G. Nardo
Reply: 'Is it time for meta-analysis?'
Hum. Reprod. Update, May 1, 2008; 14(3): 289 - 291.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Organizational Research MethodsHome page
P. D. G. Steel and J. Kammeyer-Mueller
Bayesian Variance Estimation for Meta-Analysis: Quantifying Our Uncertainty
Organizational Research Methods, January 1, 2008; 11(1): 54 - 78.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
S. Sanderson, G. Salanti, and J. Higgins
Joint Effects of the N-Acetyltransferase 1 and 2 (NAT1 and NAT2) Genes and Smoking on Bladder Carcinogenesis: A Literature-based Systematic HuGE Review and Evidence Synthesis
Am. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2007; 166(7): 741 - 751.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
J. P A Ioannidis
Commentary: Grading the credibility of molecular evidence for complex diseases
Int. J. Epidemiol., June 1, 2006; 35(3): 572 - 578.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
M. Egger, S. Ebrahim, and G. D. Smith
Where now for meta-analysis?
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 1 - 5.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
K. Woods
Commentary: Biostatistics, biological mechanisms and Bayes: lessons from the magnesium trials
Int. J. Epidemiol., February 1, 2002; 31(1): 105 - 106.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.