Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 482

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information

Schmidli, Heinz, Gsteiger, Sandro, Roychoudhury, Satrajit, O'Hagan, Anthony, Spiegelhalter, David, Neuenschwander, Beat·2014·Biometrics

Abstract

Summary: Historical information is always relevant for clinical trial design. Additionally, if incorporated in the analysis of a new trial, historical data allow to reduce the number of subjects. This decreases costs and trial duration, facilitates recruitment, and may be more ethical. Yet, under prior‐data conflict, a too optimistic use of historical data may be inappropriate. We address this challenge by deriving a Bayesian meta‐analytic‐predictive prior from historical data, which is then combined with the new data. This prospective approach is equivalent to a meta‐analytic‐combined analysis of historical and new data if parameters are exchangeable across trials. The prospective Bayesian version requires a good approximation of the meta‐analytic‐predictive prior, which is not available analytically. We propose two‐ or three‐component mixtures of standard priors, which allow for good approximations and, for the one‐parameter exponential family, straightforward posterior calculations. Moreover, since one of the mixture components is usually vague, mixture priors will often be heavy‐tailed and therefore robust. Further robustness and a more rapid reaction to prior‐data conflicts can be achieved by adding an extra weakly‐informative mixture component. Use of historical prior information is particularly attractive for adaptive trials, as the randomization ratio can then be changed in case of prior‐data conflict. Both frequentist operating characteristics and posterior summaries for various data scenarios show that these designs have desirable properties. We illustrate the methodology for a phase II proof‐of‐concept trial with historical controls from four studies. Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors alleviate prior‐data conflicts ' they should encourage better and more frequent use of historical data in clinical trials.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/biom.12242

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 39 references

Cited by

See all 482

Metadata

Authors
Schmidli, H., Gsteiger, S., Roychoudhury, S., O'Hagan, A., Spiegelhalter, D., & Neuenschwander, B.
Venue
Biometrics
Published
2014-10-29
Volume
70
Issue
4
Pages
1023-1032
ISSN
  • 0006-341X (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0420
OpenAlex
W2166992787
Cited by
482
References
39
FWCI
13.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/biom.12242
The paper
Schmidli, H., Gsteiger, S., Roychoudhury, S., O'Hagan, A., Spiegelhalter, D., & Neuenschwander, B. (2014). Robust meta‐analytic‐predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. https://doi.org/10.1111/biom.12242

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.