Incorporating genuine prior information about between-study heterogeneity in random effects pairwise and network meta-analyses

TL;DR

This paper proposes a Bayesian framework for eliciting informative priors on between-study heterogeneity in meta-analyses, especially useful when data are sparse, by integrating external evidence and expert beliefs.

Contribution

It introduces a three-stage elicitation method for constructing genuine prior distributions for heterogeneity, enhancing meta-analysis accuracy with limited data.

Findings

The method effectively incorporates external evidence and expert judgment.

It improves the reliability of heterogeneity estimates in sparse data scenarios.

Applicable to various outcome measures on an additive scale.

Abstract

Background: Pairwise and network meta-analyses using fixed effect and random effects models are commonly applied to synthesise evidence from randomised controlled trials. The models differ in their assumptions and the interpretation of the results. The model choice depends on the objective of the analysis and knowledge of the included studies. Fixed effect models are often used because there are too few studies with which to estimate the between-study standard deviation from the data alone. Objectives: The aim is to propose a framework for eliciting an informative prior distribution for the between-study standard deviation in a Bayesian random effects meta-analysis model to genuinely represent heterogeneity when data are sparse. Methods: We developed an elicitation method using external information such as empirical evidence and experts' beliefs on the 'range' of treatment effects in order to infer the prior distribution for the between-study standard deviation. We also developed the method to be implemented in R. Results: The three-stage elicitation approach allows uncertainty to be represented by a genuine prior distribution to avoid making misleading inferences. It is flexible to what judgments an expert can provide, and is applicable to all types of outcome measure for which a treatment effect can be constructed on an additive scale. Conclusions: The choice between using a fixed effect or random effects meta-analysis model depends on the inferences required and not on the number of available studies. Our elicitation framework captures external evidence about heterogeneity and overcomes the often implausible assumption that studies are estimating the same treatment effect, thereby improving the quality of inferences in decision making.