Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42524147›Full record

ArticleIndian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine2026

Bayesian Thinking in the Intensive Care Unit: From Statistical Theory to Clinical Practice.

Marcus J Schultz, Prashant Nasa, Swagata Tripathy, Tonny Veenith, Ary Serpa Neto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, 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

5 authors.

Marcus J SchultzDepartment of Anesthesia, General Intensive Care and Pain Management, Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Anaesthesiology, Rescue and Pain Medicine, Cantonal Hospital St. Gallen, HOCH Health Ostschweiz, St. Gallen, Switzerland; Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3969-7792
Prashant NasaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1948-4060
Swagata TripathyDepartment of Anesthesia and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5315-6477
Tonny VeenithDepartment of Anaesthesia and Critical Care Medicine, New Cross Hospital, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton; Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton, United Kingdom; JSS AHER-The Wolverhampton; Centre for Future Health and Policy Innovation, Mysuru, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4125-8804
Ary Serpa NetoDepartment of Intensive Care, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Research Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University; Department of Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1520-9387

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Critical care medicine operates in an environment of profound uncertainty, where clinicians must make high-stakes decisions based on incomplete, evolving, and often conflicting information. Despite this, most critical care research is frequentist-based, relying on static thresholds, dichotomous interpretations of evidence, and delayed incorporation of new data. This paradigm may not fully align with the dynamic and probabilistic nature of critical illness. Bayesian approaches offer an alternative framework that explicitly incorporates prior knowledge, continuously updates probabilities as new data emerge, and supports real-time, individualized decision-making. Rather than asking whether an intervention "works" in a binary sense, Bayesian methods estimate the probability of benefit or harm in a given clinical context, thereby aligning more closely with bedside reasoning. Importantly, such approaches are no longer theoretical. Adaptive platform trials have demonstrated the feasibility of Bayesian methodologies at scale, enabling continuous learning, dynamic treatment allocation, and simultaneous evaluation of multiple interventions. In this viewpoint, we explore how Bayesian decision-making could extend beyond research into routine intensive care practice. We discuss its potential to enhance clinical judgment, personalize therapy, and integrate heterogeneous data streams into coherent probabilistic estimates. The question is no longer whether Bayesian methods can be implemented, but how quickly and effectively they can be embedded into everyday critical care practice.

Indexed as

Bayesian methodBayesian theoremIntensive care unitMethodsResearch designResearch methodology

Identifiers

PMID42524147
PMCPMC13408714

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.