Bayesian approaches for comparative effectiveness research

Department of Biostatistics - 1409, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX 77230–1402, USA.
Clinical Trials (Impact Factor: 1.93). 08/2011; 9(1):37-47. DOI: 10.1177/1740774511417470
Source: PubMed


A hallmark of comparative effectiveness research is the analysis of all the available evidence from different studies addressing a given question of medical risk versus benefit. The Bayesian statistical approach is ideally suited for such investigations because it is inherently synthetic and because it is philosophically uninhibited regarding the ability to analyze all the available evidence.
To consider a variety of comparative effectiveness research settings and show how the Bayesian approach applies.
The Bayesian approach is described as it has been applied to the comparative analysis of implantable cardioverter defibrillators and mammographic screening, in the Cancer Intervention and Surveillance Modeling Network, in comparisons of patient outcomes data from different sources, and in designing adaptive clinical trials to support the development of 'personalized medicine.'
Bayesian methods allow for continued learning as data accrue and for cumulating meta-analyses and the comparison of heterogeneous studies. Bayesian methods enable predictive probability distributions of the results of future studies.
Bayesian posterior distributions are subject to potential bias - in the selection of 'available' evidence and in the choice of a likelihood model. Sensitivity analyses help to control this bias.
The Bayesian approach has much to offer comparative effectiveness research. It provides a mechanism for synthesizing various sources of information and for updating knowledge in an online fashion as evidence accumulates.

1 Follower
3 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical trials have largely focused on whether an intervention can work. To ensure valid and powerful testing of this hypothesis, trials attempt to maximize the effect of the intervention of interest, controlling other factors that can confound comparisons. The benefits observed in these studies are often not sustained once the treatment is used in routine care, leaving regulators, practitioners and patients with a paucity of reliable evidence to assist decision-making. Attempts to address this need have led to 'pragmatic trials' that prioritize applicability of findings to real-world practice by minimizing design features that produce less pertinent information. Minimizing biases in this pragmatic context remains a very difficult task, however. This paper reviews some of these challenges and highlights specific aspects of design that must be approached with a pragmatic attitude.
    Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research 07/2012; 1(4):319-27. DOI:10.2217/cer.12.37 · 0.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been promoted as a way to improve the translation gap between clinical research and everyday clinical practice as well as to deliver more cost-effective health care. CER will account for a significant portion of funding allocated by the US government for health care research. Oncology has a rich history of improving clinical outcomes and advancing research through randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In this article, we review the role of RCTs in achieving the goals of CER, with particular emphasis on the role of publicly funded clinical trials.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 10/2012; 30(34). DOI:10.1200/JCO.2012.42.2352 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose of review: The aim of this review is to summarize the current state of the science in physical symptoms and other end-of-life care domains and/or illness-specific outcomes in palliative care. The review includes progress in outcome measure development and interpretation, with specific reference to the clinical trial context. Recent findings: There are validated measures in a wide range of domains, which can measure outcomes specific to palliative care interventions; which are sufficiently validated to ensure the results of the trial are robust and measuring differences which are both clinically meaningful. In several areas, consensus is emerging which will allow consolidation of outcome measurement and the ability to extend measurement from the clinical trial setting into routine clinical practice. Potential exists for composite measures covering areas prioritized by patients to improve comparability and efficiency. Adverse events need to be measured with the same degree of rigor as efficacy outcomes. Summary: Clinical trials of palliative care interventions need to consider a range of outcomes, however, the choice and timing of measurement of the primary outcome need to be guided by the domain most likely to be influenced by the intervention.
    Current opinion in supportive and palliative care 10/2012; 6(4). DOI:10.1097/SPC.0b013e32835a66ca · 1.66 Impact Factor
Show more