Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42032615›Full record

ArticleTrials2026

The use of Bayesian methods for the analysis of Studies Within A Trial: a proof-of-concept case study.

Suzie Cro, Zhangyi He, Daphne Babalis, Laurent Billot

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Suzie CroImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, 1st floor, Stadium House, White City, London, W12 7RH, England, UK. s.cro@imperial.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6113-1173
Zhangyi HeThe George Institute for Global Health, Imperial College London, London, England, UK.
Daphne BabalisImperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, 1st floor, Stadium House, White City, London, W12 7RH, England, UK.
Laurent BillotThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND 

aimsA Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is a research study embedded within a larger trial which aims to investigate different strategies for a particular trial process, such as trial recruitment. It is imperative such studies, which are often underpowered, employ efficient and informative analytical methods. The use of Bayesian methods and interpretation of SWAT results in this context requires exploration. Bayesian methods provide direct probability statements about intervention effects and readily enable ACceptability Curve Estimation using Probability above Threshold (ACCEPT) analyses, which consider the probability of the tested intervention being effective for different threshold values. Additionally, they provide an opportunity to incorporate the results of previous similar studies within the analysis using informative priors. This proof-of-concept study re-analysed two previous SWATs using Bayesian methods and ACCEPT analyses.

methodsA SWAT conducted by Du et al. in 2009 and a subsequent SWAT by Mattock et al. in 2020 compared a video intervention against standard patient information on trial recruitment. For each SWAT, a primary Bayesian analysis was performed using a logistic model with non-informative priors. Sensitivity analysis explored informative priors informed by meta-analysis of previous similar studies; this included an analysis of the Mattock et al. SWAT incorporating the result of the earlier Du et al. SWAT. ACCEPT curves were constructed. Results were compared with frequentist analyses.

resultsFor the Du et al. SWAT, the primary Bayesian analysis gave an OR for recruitment for the video relative to standard information of 2.12, 95% CrI: 0.38-4.65 and a posterior probability of the video being effective (OR > 1) of 0.86. When taking into account results of previous SWATs by using an informative prior there remained a moderately high probability of video benefit (0.82). For the latter Mattock et al. SWAT, the primary Bayesian analysis gave an OR for recruitment for the video relative to standard information of 0.26, 95% CrI: 0.07-0.51 and the posterior probability of the video being effective was 0.0005, indicating very little chance of effectiveness; ACCEPT plots facilitated interpretation by showing the probability that the video was better than standard information for OR > 0.8 was very small (0.0032). When taking into account the results of previous SWATs using an informative prior, including Du et al., the probability of the video being effective was still very small (0.12).

conclusionsBayesian methods and ACCEPT analyses offer solutions to challenges experienced in the analysis and interpretation of SWATs, which are often underpowered. Greater use of these analytical approaches within SWATs will lead to a more accessible, improved evidence base on how to effectively conduct trials.

Indexed as

Research DesignBayes TheoremData Interpretation, StatisticalHumansPatient SelectionProof of Concept StudyACCEPTBayesianStatistical analysisStudy within a trialSWAT

Identifiers

PMID42032615
PMCPMC13244628

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.