Bayesian multivariate meta-analysis of multiple factors
Open accessAbstract
In medical sciences, a disease condition is typically associated with multiple risk and protective factors. Although many studies report results of multiple factors, nearly all meta‐analyses separately synthesize the association between each factor and the disease condition of interest. The collected studies usually report different subsets of factors, and the results from separate analyses on multiple factors may not be comparable because each analysis may use different subpopulation. This may impact on selecting most important factors to design a multifactor intervention program. This article proposes a new concept, multivariate meta‐analysis of multiple factors (MVMA‐MF), to synthesize all available factors simultaneously. By borrowing information across factors, MVMA‐MF can improve statistical efficiency and reduce biases compared with separate analyses when factors were missing not at random. As within‐study correlations between factors are commonly unavailable from published articles, we use a Bayesian hybrid model to perform MVMA‐MF, which effectively accounts for both within‐ and between‐study correlations. The performance of MVMA‐MF and the conventional methods are compared using simulations and an application to a pterygium dataset consisting of 29 studies on 8 risk factors.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Due to unknown correlations within each study and lack of individual patient data, a hybrid MVMA-MF was conducted.
“Due to the correlations within each study being unknown and a lack of available individual patient data (IPD), a hybrid MVMA-MF was specifically conducted.”
From An Improved Definition and SAFE Rule for Predicting Difficult Intravascular Access (DIVA) in Hospitalized Adults (2024) · cites this paper as [11]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 19
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [37]Petitti DB Meta-Analysis, Decision Analysis, and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis: Methods for Quantitative Synthesis in Medicine New York, NY Oxford University Press 2000
- Authors
- Lin, L., & Chu, H.
- Affiliations
- Florida State University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lin, Lifeng
- Chu, Haitao
- Venue
- Research Synthesis Methods
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-03-24
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 261-272
- ISSN
- 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-2887
- PMC
- PMC5988916
- OpenAlex
- W2790483679
- Semantic Scholar
- 16e8c54457c222dbe80abcf3ca8d6b280e7fbe88
- Cited by
- 19
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 1.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. National Library of Medicine (R21LM012197, R21LM012744)
- National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (U01DK106786)
- National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (U54MD008620)
- National Cancer Institute (P30CA077598)
- National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research (R03DE024750)
- National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (R21AI103012)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- multivariate meta-analysis, multiple risk factors, missing not at random, statistical efficiency, pterygium, risk factors
- MeSH terms
- Bayes Theorem, Computer Simulation, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Probability, Pterygium, Regression Analysis, Risk Factors, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Models, Statistical, Multivariate Analysis, Odds Ratio, Outcome Assessment, Health Care
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review