Methods to elicit beliefs for Bayesian priors: a systematic review

Johnson, Sindhu R.; Tomlinson, George; Hawker, Gillian; Granton, John; Feldman, Brian M.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.003

Cited by 162 publications

(168 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…'Good practice' recommendations for eliciting expert opinion were followed, in particular by including a feedback question and allowing the experts to revise their answers. 106 The scale of scores for the elicitation exercise is the same as the original scale for the EQ-5D-3L utility score, multiplied by 100 for ease of completion. The expert is provided with possible scores for typical patients, with six exemplar diagnoses on the scale between -20 and 100 (based on published literature), which were chosen as they were anticipated to be familiar to our experts and because they spanned the EQ-5D-3L scale.…”

Section: Developing and Validating A 48-hour Mortality Risk Scorementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

Ulug

Hinchliffe

Sweeting

et al. 2018

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a common vascular emergency. The mortality from emergency endovascular repair may be much lower than the 40–50% reported for open surgery. Objective To assess whether or not a strategy of endovascular repair compared with open repair reduces 30-day and mid-term mortality (including costs and cost-effectiveness) among patients with a suspected ruptured AAA. Design Randomised controlled trial, with computer-generated telephone randomisation of participants in a 1 : 1 ratio, using variable block size, stratified by centre and without blinding. Setting Vascular centres in the UK (n = 29) and Canada (n = 1) between 2009 and 2013. Participants A total of 613 eligible participants (480 men) with a ruptured aneurysm, clinically diagnosed at the trial centre. Interventions A total of 316 participants were randomised to the endovascular strategy group (immediate computerised tomography followed by endovascular repair if anatomically suitable or, if not suitable, open repair) and 297 were randomised to the open repair group (computerised tomography optional). Main outcome measures The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality, with 30-day reinterventions, costs and disposal as early secondary outcome measures. Later outcome measures included 1- and 3-year mortality, reinterventions, quality of life (QoL) and cost-effectiveness. Results The 30-day mortality was 35.4% in the endovascular strategy group and 37.4% in the open repair group [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.28; p = 0.62, and, after adjustment for age, sex and Hardman index, OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.33]. The endovascular strategy appeared to be more effective in women than in men (interaction test p = 0.02). More discharges in the endovascular strategy group (94%) than in the open repair group (77%) were directly to home (p < 0.001). Average 30-day costs were similar between groups, with the mean difference in costs being –£1186 (95% CI –£2997 to £625), favouring the endovascular strategy group. After 1 year, survival and reintervention rates were similar in the two groups, QoL (at both 3 and 12 months) was higher in the endovascular strategy group and the mean cost difference was –£2329 (95% CI –£5489 to £922). At 3 years, mortality was 48% and 56% in the endovascular strategy group and open repair group, respectively (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.00; p = 0.053), with a stronger benefit for the endovascular strategy in the subgroup of 502 participants in whom repair was started for a proven rupture (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.89; p = 0.009), whereas aneurysm-related reintervention rates were non-significantly higher in this group. At 3 years, considering all participants, there was a mean difference of 0.174 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) (95% CI 0.002 to 0.353 QALYs) and, among the endovascular strategy group, a cost difference of –£2605 (95% CI –£5966 to £702), leading to 88% of estimates in the cost-effectiveness plane being in the quadrant showing the endovascular strategy to be ‘dominant’. Limitations Because of the pragmatic design of this trial, 33 participants in the endovascular strategy group and 26 in the open repair group breached randomisation allocation. Conclusions The endovascular strategy was not associated with a significant reduction in either 30-day mortality or cost but was associated with faster participant recovery. By 3 years, the endovascular strategy showed a survival and QALY gain and was highly likely to be cost-effective. Future research could include improving resuscitation for older persons with circulatory collapse, the impact of local anaesthesia and emergency consent procedures. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48334791 and NCT00746122. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 31. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

show abstract

Section: Developing and Validating A 48-hour Mortality Risk Scorementioning

confidence: 99%

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

Ulug

Hinchliffe

Sweeting

et al. 2018

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An additional important feature of Bayesian methods is the incorporation of evidence additional to the conventional data. 87,88 This additional evidence is called a prior distribution and summarises information from external sources.…”

Section: Evidence Of Experts' Prior Beliefs For the Effectiveness Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include the ability to interpret CIs as providing intervals that contain the true effect with some particular probability, say a 95% probability; shifting the focus of interpretation away from dichotomising whether the data suggest the intervention works or not, that is, by not claiming a 'significant' or 'null result', and instead providing estimates of probabilities of benefits greater than some clinically important effect size, and so switching focus to how clinically important the intervention might be; and, finally, allowing for the inclusion of evidence additional to the conventional data. 88,118 This additional evidence is called a prior distribution and summarises information from external sources. External evidence could perhaps be subjective opinions.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction

Morris

Malin²,

Quinlan-Jones³

et al. 2013

Health Technology Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some forms of evidence, such as uniform case series, could even contribute to false positive judgments if the prevalence is too low for the series' sampling frame to capture counter-examples, or if alternative causes to abuse have not been sought. While attempts have been made to correct for bias in the quantification of expert opinion (Kynn 2008;Johnson et al 2010) these involve expert surveys, which are clearly not appropriate for the assessment of abuse.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving Child Protection by Integrating Research Evidence and Clinical Experience

Foreman

Best

Dunstan

et al. 2015

Int J Law Policy Family

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods to elicit beliefs for Bayesian priors: a systematic review

Cited by 162 publications

References 59 publications

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

Strategy of endovascular versus open repair for patients with clinical diagnosis of ruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm: the IMPROVE RCT

The Percutaneous shunting in Lower Urinary Tract Obstruction (PLUTO) study and randomised controlled trial: evaluation of the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of percutaneous vesicoamniotic shunting for lower urinary tract obstruction

Improving Child Protection by Integrating Research Evidence and Clinical Experience

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About