Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40432423›Full record

ReviewPaediatric anaesthesia2025

Flipping the Conditional: Why We Are Probably Wrong About Probabilities.

David Sidebotham, Tim Dare

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Paediatric anaesthesia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David SidebothamDepartment of Anaesthesia and the Cardiothoracic and Vascular Intensive Care Unit, Auckland City Hospital, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0001-9478-021X
Tim DareDepartment of Philosophy, Faulty of Philosophy, Arts and Education, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau, Auckland, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0410-0968

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Flipping the conditional is an error of reasoning that occurs when we inadvertently transpose the terms in a conditional probability. A conditional probability arises when the probability of an event occurring (e.g., a positive test result) depends on another event being true (e.g., the presence of a disease). The ordering of terms in a conditional probability is crucially important, and the consequences of transposing the terms can be severe. The error of reasoning is most easily entertained when events are very rare. Flipping the conditional explains why we sometimes misinterpret clinical and diagnostic tests and also underpins a phenomenon known as the "prosecutor's fallacy". Flipping the conditional occurs when we confuse the sensitivity of a diagnostic test with the positive predictive value. The prosecutor's fallacy involves confusing the probability a person is guilty given the evidence with the probability of the evidence given they are guilty. Perhaps the best-known example of the prosecutor's fallacy is that of UK solicitor Sally Clark, who in 1990 was convicted of murdering her two infant sons. Recently, the prosecutor's fallacy has again been in the news, with respect to the statistical evidence presented at the trial of UK nurse, Lucy Letby. In this article, we define the concept of conditional probability and discuss some examples of flipping the conditional that are relevant to pediatric anesthesia and to medical evidence presented at trial.

Indexed as

HumansProbabilityBayes' theoremcognitive biasprobabilityprosecutor's fallacystatistics as a topic

Identifiers

PMID40432423
PMCPMC12233044

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.