We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Review
The uptake of Bayesian methods in biomedical meta-analyses: A scoping review (2005-2016).
Journal of Evidence-based Medicine 2019 Februrary
AIM: Bayesian statistical methods can allow for more complete and accurate incorporation of evidence in meta-analyses. However, these methods remain under-utilized.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to examine the proportion of biomedical meta-analyses that used Bayesian methods in the period 2005-2016. The review also examined the reproducibility of the work, the cited sources, the reasons for it, its success or failure, the type of model and prior distributions, and whether a mixture of Bayesian and frequentist methods were employed.
RESULTS: We found that 1% of meta-analyses are Bayesian and that the reporting and conduct of these were often poor. Data were published in 41% of analyses, and programs to run the analysis in 18%. Network meta-analysis was the most common reason and became increasingly popular in recent years. In the majority of papers, models and distributions were either not reported or explained in such brief and ambiguous terms as to be uninformative.
CONCLUSIONS: More use needs to be made of Bayesian meta-analysis, and reporting needs to be improved. Greater awareness of these methods and access to training in them is essential.
METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to examine the proportion of biomedical meta-analyses that used Bayesian methods in the period 2005-2016. The review also examined the reproducibility of the work, the cited sources, the reasons for it, its success or failure, the type of model and prior distributions, and whether a mixture of Bayesian and frequentist methods were employed.
RESULTS: We found that 1% of meta-analyses are Bayesian and that the reporting and conduct of these were often poor. Data were published in 41% of analyses, and programs to run the analysis in 18%. Network meta-analysis was the most common reason and became increasingly popular in recent years. In the majority of papers, models and distributions were either not reported or explained in such brief and ambiguous terms as to be uninformative.
CONCLUSIONS: More use needs to be made of Bayesian meta-analysis, and reporting needs to be improved. Greater awareness of these methods and access to training in them is essential.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app