NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Cover of A Bayesian Missing Data Framework for Multiple Continuous Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons

A Bayesian Missing Data Framework for Multiple Continuous Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons

Methods Research Reports

Investigators: , PhD candidate, , PhD, , MD, PhD, , MD, MS, , MD, PhD, and , MD.

Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); .
Report No.: 13-EHC004-EF

Structured Abstract


Bayesian statistical approaches to mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) are becoming more popular due to their flexibility and interpretability. Many randomized clinical trials report multiple outcomes with possible inherent correlations, but there is little previous work in modeling them statistically. We aimed to build on existing hierarchical modeling and missing data methods to obtain novel and improved Bayesian approaches to MTCs for multiple continuous outcomes.

Data sources:

We reviewed randomized clinical trials published in English after 1979 that examined physical therapy interventions for community-dwelling adults with knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis (OA). After screening, 84 randomized trials met the inclusion/exclusion criteria, reporting variously on knee pain, disability, quality of life, and functional outcomes.


After a review of existing hierarchical Bayesian methods for MTCs with a single continuous outcome, we introduce novel Bayesian approaches for multiple continuous outcomes (here, pain and disability) simultaneously, rather than in separate MTC analyses, by generalizing existing models to treat missing data the same as unknown parameters and to incorporate correlation structure between outcomes. We also introduce an arm-based model that is less constrained than existing models. We produce Bayesian treatment ranks based on a sensible scoring system incorporating weights for the multiple outcomes. We also offer simulation studies to check our method's Type I error, power, and the probability of incorrectly selecting the best treatment.


In our OA data analysis, while all the models gave similar goodness of fit, they yielded different best treatments, with aerobic exercise emerging as best according to the older models, but proprioception exercise being preferred by our weighted ranking models. Still, few statistically significant differences between treatments were observed. Our missing data approaches had better power and Type I error than previous Bayesian methods in our simulation study. Ignoring missing data or correlation between outcomes can produce biased MTC estimates leading to high Type I error and low power, especially when the data from missing treatments depend on the observed data.


Our missing data approaches appear preferable for incorporating missing data and correlation structure in MTC modeling, to traditional contrast-based approaches, and thus in obtaining more precise and robust parameter estimates.

Key Messages

  • Since researchers often choose study arms based on previous trials, it is important to consider any unobserved treatment arms in an MTC as missing data and subsequently use Bayes' Rule to learn about the treatments' relative relationships. This makes it easier to assign prior distributions on random effects and delivers better statistical inference.
  • Our arm-based models are less constrained than previous contrast-based models and can thus yield parameters with more straightforward interpretations, especially in the presence of correlations between outcomes.

Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services1, Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I. Prepared by: Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center, Minneapolis, MN

Suggested citation:

Hong H, Carlin BP, Chu H, Shamliyan TA, Wang S, Kane RL. A Bayesian Missing Data Framework for Multiple Continuous Outcome Mixed Treatment Comparisons. Methods Research Report. (Prepared by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I.) AHRQ Publication No.13-EHC004-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; January 2013.

This report is based on research conducted by the Minnesota Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. 290-2007-10064-I). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients.

This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.

None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report.


540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850; www‚Äč

Bookshelf ID: NBK116689PMID: 23367529


Related information

Similar articles in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...