Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Department, CHU de Besançon, Besançon, France; Université de Strasbourg, iCUBE, UMR7357, Illkirch Cedex, France.
Institut Pasteur de Lille, Unité d'Epidémiologie et de Santé Publique, INSERM-U1167, Lille, France.
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Aug;125(2):201-207. doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.092. Epub 2020 Jun 27.
The critical reading of scientific articles is necessary for the daily practice of evidence-based medicine. Rigorous comprehension of statistical methods is essential, as reflected by the extensive use of statistics in the biomedical literature. In contrast to the customary frequentist approach, which never uses or gives the probability of a hypothesis, Bayesian theory uses probabilities for both hypotheses and data. This statistical approach is increasingly used for analyses of clinical trial data and for applied machine learning. The aim of this review is to compare general Bayesian concepts with frequentist methods to facilitate a better understanding of Bayesian theory for readers who are not familiar with this approach. The review is intended to be used in combination with a checklist we have devised for reading reports analysed by Bayesian methods. We compare and contrast the different approaches of Bayesian vs frequentist statistical methods by considering data from a clinical trial that lends itself to this comparative approach.
对于循证医学的日常实践来说,对科学文献进行批判性阅读是必要的。严格理解统计方法是必不可少的,这反映在生物医学文献中广泛使用统计学上。与习惯的频率派方法不同,贝叶斯理论同时为假设和数据使用概率。这种统计方法越来越多地用于临床试验数据的分析和应用机器学习。本文的目的是比较贝叶斯和频率派方法的一般概念,以帮助不熟悉这种方法的读者更好地理解贝叶斯理论。本文旨在与我们设计的用于阅读贝叶斯方法分析的报告的检查表结合使用。我们通过考虑一个临床试验的数据来比较和对比贝叶斯与频率派统计方法的不同方法,这个临床试验适合这种比较方法。