ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2024
Using Bayesian Hypothesis-testing to Reanalyze Randomized Controlled Trials: Does it Always Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth?
Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequately powered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the highest level of evidence in guiding clinical practice. Reports using Bayesian hypothesis-testing to reanalyze RCTs are increasing. One distinct advantage of Bayesian analysis is that we can obtain a range of numerical probabilities that reflect how likely a study intervention is more effective than the alternative after considering both pre-existing available evidence and the alternate hypotheses. A recent analysis of critical care trials showed that some trials with an indeterminate result according to the frequentist analysis could have a high probability of being effective when reinterpreted by Bayesian analysis. In this perspective article, we will discuss the caveats in interpreting the results of Bayesian reanalysis of RCTs before we change clinical practice. When overoptimistic hypothesis prior probabilities are used, it carries a risk to translate noises into false signals. Using Bayes factors (BFs) to quantify evidence contained in data (by the ratio of the probability of data under each hypothesis) is thus more preferable than using a single prior probability, such that the BF approach becomes the mainstream in Bayesian hypothesis-testing. Still, BFs are dependent on the prior parameter distributions; comparing different hypotheses would invariably result in different results. How to cite this article: Ho KM, Lee A. Using Bayesian Hypothesis-testing to Reanalyze Randomized Controlled Trials: Does it Always Tell the Truth, the Whole Truth and Nothing but the Truth? Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(11):1005-1008.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.