ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2023
Why are There not More Bayesian Clinical Trials? Ability to Interpret Bayesian and Conventional Statistics Among Medical Researchers.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Placebo Rates in Crohn's Disease Randomized Clinical Trials: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis.Gastroenterology · 2025Pooled it
- Bayesian probabilistic statements for communicating clinical trial results.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- CONSORT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for reporting randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Toward Patient Centricity: Why Do Patients With Inflammatory Bowel Disease Participate in Pharmaceutical Clinical Trials? A Mixed-Methods Exploration of Study Participants.Crohn's & colitis 360 · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE AND
backgroundWe assessed current understandings in interpretation of Bayesian and traditional statistical results within the clinical researcher (non-statistician) community.
methodsWithin a 22-question survey, including demographics and experience and comfort levels with Bayesian analyses, we included questions on how to interpret both Bayesian and traditional statistical outputs. We also assessed whether Bayesian or traditional interpretations are considered more useful.
resultsAmong the 323 respondent clinicians, 42.4% and 36.5% chose the correct interpretations of the posterior probability and 95% credible interval, respectively. Only 11.5% of respondents interpreted the p-value correctly and 23.5% interpreted the 95% confidence interval correctly.
conclusionsBased on these survey results, we conclude that most of these clinicians face uncertainty when attempting to interpret results from both Bayesian and traditional statistical outputs. When presented with accurate interpretations, clinicians generally conclude that Bayesian results are more useful than conventional ones. We believe there is a need for education of clinicians in statistical interpretation in ways that are customized to this audience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
36496452What 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.