Abstract:<p>The prediction interval has been increasingly used in meta‐analyses as a useful measure for assessing the magnitude of treatment effect and between‐studies heterogeneity. In calculations of the prediction interval, although the Higgins–Thompson–Spiegelhalter method is used most often in practice, it might not have adequate coverage probability for the true treatment effect of a future study under realistic situations. An effective alternative candidate is the Bayesian prediction interval, which has also been widely used in general prediction problems. However, these prediction intervals are constructed based on the Bayesian philosophy, and their frequentist validities are only justified by large‐sample approximations even if noninformative priors are adopted. There has been no certain evidence that evaluated their frequentist performances under realistic situations of meta‐analyses. In this study, we conducted extensive simulation studies to assess the frequentist coverage performances of Bayesian prediction intervals with 11 noninformative prior distributions under general meta‐analysis settings. Through these simulation studies, we found that frequentist coverage performances strongly depended on what prior distributions were adopted. In addition, when the number of studies was smaller than 10, there were no prior distributions that retained accurate frequentist coverage properties. We also illustrated these methods via applications to two real meta‐analysis datasets. The resultant prediction intervals also differed according to the adopted prior distributions. Inaccurate prediction intervals may provide invalid evidence and misleading conclusions. Thus, if frequentist accuracy is required, Bayesian prediction intervals should be used cautiously in practice.</p>

Bayesian Meta-Analysis of Correlation Coefficients Through Power Prior

Normalized Power Prior Bayesian Analysis

Bayesian Mediation Analysis.

Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis of diagnostic test studies with interpretable priors

Summary-statistics-based power analysis: A new and practical method to determine sample size for mixed-effects modeling.

Bayesian Model-Averaged Meta-Analysis in Medicine

Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis using the bayesmeta R package

On the Use of Beta Coefficients in Meta-Analysis.

Objective Bayesian meta-analysis based on generalized multivariate random effects model

Using prior information to boost power in correlation structure support recovery

A Novel Method to Use Coordinate Based Meta-Analysis to Determine a Prior Distribution for Voxelwise Bayesian Second-Level fMRI Analysis

Assessment of Bayesian expected power via Bayesian bootstrap

Integrating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies of interventions to assess the effect of rare events: a Bayesian re-analysis of two meta-analyses

Conducting Bayesian-Classical Hybrid Power Analysis with R Package Hybridpower

Bayesian Data Analysis: A Fresh Approach to Power Issues and Null Hypothesis Interpretation

Power Analysis Software for Educational Researchers

Frequentist performances of Bayesian prediction intervals for random‐effects meta‐analysis

Monte Carlo Based Statistical Power Analysis for Mediation Models: Methods and Software

Empirically adjusted fixed-effects meta-analysis methods in genomic studies

Towards a power analysis for PLS-based methods

Finding the right power balance: Better study design and collaboration can reduce dependence on statistical power