Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40435029›Full record

ReviewCritical care science2025

Understanding Bayesian analysis of clinical trials: an overview for clinicians.

Callum Taylor, Kathryn Puxty, Tara Quasim, Martin Shaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care science, 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. Article
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

4 authors.

Callum TaylorUniversity of Glasgow - Glasgow, United Kingdom.
Kathryn PuxtyUniversity of Glasgow - Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5742-6171
Tara QuasimUniversity of Glasgow - Glasgow, United Kingdom.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9872-3623
Martin ShawNHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde - Glasgow, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian analysis is being used with increasing frequency in critical care research and brings advantages and disadvantages compared to traditional Frequentist techniques. This study overviews this methodology and explains the terminology encountered when appraising this literature. Setting different priors can impact the interpretation of new results, and we describe an approach to understanding this. Finally, the strengths and challenges of adopting a Bayesian analysis compared to Frequentist techniques are explored.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicCritical CareBayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansResearch Design

Identifiers

PMID40435029
PMCPMC12094692

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.