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
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
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|