TY - JOUR
T1 - Pooling of effect estimates obtained from various study designs in systematic reviews of public health interventions
T2 - A Bayesian approach to meta-analysis
AU - Lewis, Melissa Glenda
AU - Guddattu, Vasudeva
AU - Kamath, Asha
AU - Biju, Seena
AU - Noronha, Judith
AU - Nayak, Baby
AU - Nair, N. Sreekumaran
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 INDIACLEN
PY - 2017/9/1
Y1 - 2017/9/1
N2 - Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard in assessing the effectiveness of a clinical intervention because of their high internal validity. However, the same does not hold true for interventions conducted at the population level like public health interventions. Well-designed RCTs are not easy to conduct at population level. Similarly, well planned, high-quality non-RCTs or observational studies can complement RCTs. Because of this, several systematic reviews of public health interventions are assessed with other study designs, namely non-RCTs and observational studies. In such situations, studies of similar study design are pooled together to obtain an overall effect estimate. This is inevitable, because the principle of meta-analysis does not offer an opportunity for combining effect estimates coming from various study designs. If the meta-analysis performed for each study design provides contrasting results, then this introduces a quandary for the decision makers and public health policy makers to call for a decision. Objective The present study aims to integrate the results coming from a variety of study designs in order to obtain a single estimate of effect of intervention. Methodology Bayesian approach to meta-analysis was used by formulating prior distribution from observational studies or non-RCTs and likelihood function from RCTs. Five systematic reviews of public health intervention were used to demonstrate the methodology. Results/conclusions By formulating prior distribution from observational studies, the posterior estimates were found to be different than that from the results of RCTs or other study designs. The posterior pooled-estimate was found to be precise and the width of the credible interval narrowed. Inclusion of the relevant observational studies (or non-RCTs) in the systematic review is a potential advantage for evaluating the effectiveness of public health intervention.
AB - Background Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard in assessing the effectiveness of a clinical intervention because of their high internal validity. However, the same does not hold true for interventions conducted at the population level like public health interventions. Well-designed RCTs are not easy to conduct at population level. Similarly, well planned, high-quality non-RCTs or observational studies can complement RCTs. Because of this, several systematic reviews of public health interventions are assessed with other study designs, namely non-RCTs and observational studies. In such situations, studies of similar study design are pooled together to obtain an overall effect estimate. This is inevitable, because the principle of meta-analysis does not offer an opportunity for combining effect estimates coming from various study designs. If the meta-analysis performed for each study design provides contrasting results, then this introduces a quandary for the decision makers and public health policy makers to call for a decision. Objective The present study aims to integrate the results coming from a variety of study designs in order to obtain a single estimate of effect of intervention. Methodology Bayesian approach to meta-analysis was used by formulating prior distribution from observational studies or non-RCTs and likelihood function from RCTs. Five systematic reviews of public health intervention were used to demonstrate the methodology. Results/conclusions By formulating prior distribution from observational studies, the posterior estimates were found to be different than that from the results of RCTs or other study designs. The posterior pooled-estimate was found to be precise and the width of the credible interval narrowed. Inclusion of the relevant observational studies (or non-RCTs) in the systematic review is a potential advantage for evaluating the effectiveness of public health intervention.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008462052&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008462052&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cegh.2016.12.001
DO - 10.1016/j.cegh.2016.12.001
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85008462052
SN - 2213-3984
VL - 5
SP - 137
EP - 142
JO - Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
JF - Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
IS - 3
ER -