Comparision of Bayesian methods for incorporating adult clinical trial data to improve certainty of treatment effect estimates in children.
Walker, R.; Dias, S.; Phillips, B.
Show abstract
There are challenges associated with recruiting children to take part in randomised clinical trials and as a result, compared to adults, in many disease areas we are less certain about which treatments are most safe and effective. This can lead to weaker recommendations about which treatments to prescribe in practice. However, it may be possible to borrow strength from adult evidence to improve our understanding of which treatments work best in children, and many different statistical methods are available to conduct these analyses. In this paper we discuss Bayesian methods for extrapolating adult clinical trial evidence to children. Using an exemplar dataset, we compare the effect of modelling assumptions on the estimated treatment effect and associated heterogeneity. We finally discuss the appropriateness of different modelling assumptions in the context of estimating treatment effect in children.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 93%
- Strength of Statistical Evidence for the Efficacy of Cancer Drugs: A Bayesian Re-Analysis of Trials Supporting FDA Approval 93%
- Estimating and Testing an Index of Bias Attributable to Composite Outcomes in Comparative Studies 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- ZIBGLMM: Zero-Inflated Bivariate Generalized Linear Mixed Model for Meta-Analysis with Double-Zero-Event Studies 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 94%
- Evaluation of statistical methods used to meta-analyse results from interrupted time series studies: a simulation study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using the Bayesian credible subgroups method to identify populations benefiting from treatment: An application to the Look AHEAD trial 94%
- Using numerical modelling and simulation to assess the ethical burden in clinical trials and how it relates to the proportion of responders in a trial sample 94%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Erroneous risks in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions during data extraction in evidence synthesis practice: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial 91%
- Hydroxyurea Therapy for Neurological and Cognitive Protection in Pediatric Sickle Cell Anemia in Uganda (BRAIN SAFE II): Protocol for a single-arm open label trial 89%
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 89%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.