ReviewPharmacoEconomics2007
The contrast and convergence of Bayesian and frequentist statistical approaches in pharmacoeconomic analysis.
Review in PharmacoEconomics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Potassium-Competitive Acid Blockers Versus Proton Pump Inhibitors for Gastric Ulcers: Bayesian and Frequentist Network Meta-Analysis With Cross-Inference Through a Quality management System.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2025Article
- Differences between Frequentist and Bayesian inference in routine surveillance for influenza vaccine effectiveness: a test-negative case-control study.BMC public health · 2021Article
- When data interpretation should not rely on the magnitude of P values: the example of ANDROMEDA SHOCK trial.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Hepatitis C Direct-Acting Antiviral Treatment Selection, Treatment Failure, and Use of Drug-Drug Interactions in a State Medicaid Program.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of Bayesian statistical analyses has been facilitated in recent years by methodological advances and an increasing complexity necessitated within research. Substantial debate has historically accompanied this analytic approach relative to the frequentist method, which is the predominant statistical ideology employed in clinical studies. While the essence of the debate between the two branches of statistics centres on differences in the use of prior information and the definition of probability, the ramifications involve the breadth of research design, analysis and interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the application of frequentist and Bayesian statistics in the pharmacoeconomic assessment of healthcare technology. A description of both paradigms is offered in the context of potential advantages and disadvantages, and applications within pharmacoeconomics are briefly addressed. Additional considerations are presented to stimulate further development and to direct appropriate applications of each method such that the integrity and robustness of scientific inference be strengthened.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17640107What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.