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>

How vague is vague? How informative is informative? Reference analysis for Bayesian meta‐analysis

Comparison of Prior Distributions for the Heterogeneity Parameter in a Rare Events Meta‐Analysis of a Few Studies

A Bayesian nonparametric meta‐analysis model for estimating the reference interval

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

Properly constrained reference priors decay rates for efficient and robust posterior inference

Bayesian Model-Averaged Meta-Analysis in Medicine

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

Random‐effects meta‐analysis of few studies involving rare events

Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases

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

Posterior propriety in Bayesian extreme value analyses using reference priors

Intuitive joint priors for variance parameters

Reverse‐Bayes methods for evidence assessment and research synthesis

Comparing Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression methods and evaluating the influence of priors for evaluations of surrogate endpoints on heterogeneous collections of clinical trials

Is non-informative Bayesian analysis appropriate for wildlife management: survival of San Joaquin Kit Fox and declines in amphibian populations

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

The prior can generally only be understood in the context of the likelihood

A robust Bayesian bias-adjusted random effects model for consideration of uncertainty about bias terms in evidence synthesis

Bayesian model-based outlier detection in network meta-analysis

Random-Effect Meta-Analysis with Robust Between-Study Variance

Meta-analysis of few small studies in orphan diseases