Gabrielle E Hatton1,2,3, Claudia Pedroza4, Lillian S Kao1,2,4,3. 1. Division of Acute Care Surgery, Department of Surgery, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA. 2. Center for Surgical Trials and Evidence-based Practice, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA. 3. Center for Translational Injury Research, Houston, Texas, USA. 4. Center for Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, McGovern Medical School at UTHealth, Houston, Texas, USA.
Abstract
Background: Application of clinical study findings to surgical decision making requires accurate interpretation of the results, integration of the findings within the context of pre-existing knowledge and use of statistics to answer clinically relevant questions. Bayesian analyses are optimally suited for interpretation of study findings, supporting translation to the bedside. Discussion: Surgical decision making is a complex process that draws on an individual clinician's medical knowledge, experience, data, and the patient's unique characteristics and preferences. Subjective and objective knowledge may be merged to derive a probability of benefit or harm of a treatment under consideration. Bayesian reasoning complements the clinical decision-making process by incorporating known evidence and data from a new study to determine the probability of an outcome of interest. Bayesian analyses are statistically robust and intuitive when translating findings of a study into clinical care. In contrast, frequentist statistics are poorly suited to translate study findings to clinical application. This review aims to highlight the benefits of incorporating Bayesian analyses into clinical research. Conclusion: Bayesian analyses offer clinically relevant information including the probability of benefit or harm of a treatment under consideration while accounting for uncertainty. This information may be incorporated easily and accurately into surgical decision making.
Background: Application of clinical study findings to surgical decision making requires accurate interpretation of the results, integration of the findings within the context of pre-existing knowledge and use of statistics to answer clinically relevant questions. Bayesian analyses are optimally suited for interpretation of study findings, supporting translation to the bedside. Discussion: Surgical decision making is a complex process that draws on an individual clinician's medical knowledge, experience, data, and the patient's unique characteristics and preferences. Subjective and objective knowledge may be merged to derive a probability of benefit or harm of a treatment under consideration. Bayesian reasoning complements the clinical decision-making process by incorporating known evidence and data from a new study to determine the probability of an outcome of interest. Bayesian analyses are statistically robust and intuitive when translating findings of a study into clinical care. In contrast, frequentist statistics are poorly suited to translate study findings to clinical application. This review aims to highlight the benefits of incorporating Bayesian analyses into clinical research. Conclusion: Bayesian analyses offer clinically relevant information including the probability of benefit or harm of a treatment under consideration while accounting for uncertainty. This information may be incorporated easily and accurately into surgical decision making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bayesian statistics; decision making; likelihood; posterior probability; prior probability
Authors: Dirk Bassler; Matthias Briel; Victor M Montori; Melanie Lane; Paul Glasziou; Qi Zhou; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt; David N Flynn; Mohamed B Elamin; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Nisrin O Abu Elnour; Julianna F Lampropulos; Amit Sood; Rebecca J Mullan; Patricia J Erwin; Clare R Bankhead; Rafael Perera; Carolina Ruiz Culebro; John J You; Sohail M Mulla; Jagdeep Kaur; Kara A Nerenberg; Holger Schünemann; Deborah J Cook; Kristina Lutz; Christine M Ribic; Noah Vale; German Malaga; Elie A Akl; Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gerard Urrutia; Regina Kunz; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann; Heike Raatz; Suzana Alves da Silva; Fabio Tuche; Brigitte Strahm; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Neill K J Adhikari; Edward J Mills; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Haresh Kirpalani; Heloisa P Soares; Paul J Karanicolas; Karen E A Burns; Per Olav Vandvik; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Pedro Paulo M Chrispim; Tim Ramsay Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-03-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Alexander J Sutton; Nicola J Cooper; Keith R Abrams; Paul C Lambert; David R Jones Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Tyler J Loftus; Patrick J Tighe; Amanda C Filiberto; Philip A Efron; Scott C Brakenridge; Alicia M Mohr; Parisa Rashidi; Gilbert R Upchurch; Azra Bihorac Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2020-02-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Ellen T Crumley; Natasha Wiebe; Kristie Cramer; Terry P Klassen; Lisa Hartling Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2005-08-10 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Jan O Jansen; Henry Wang; John B Holcomb; John A Harvin; Joshua Richman; Elenir Avritscher; Shannon W Stephens; Van Thi Thanh Truong; Marisa B Marques; Stacia M DeSantis; Jose-Miguel Yamal; Claudia Pedroza Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-01-22 Impact factor: 3.157