Abstract
The recent controversy over the increased risk of venous thrombosis with third generation oral contraceptives illustrates the public policy dilemma that can be created by relying on conventional statistical tests and estimates: case-control studies showed a significant increase in risk and forced a decision either to warn or not to warn. Conventional statistical tests are an improper basis for such decisions because they dichotomise results according to whether they are or are not significant and do not allow decision makers to take explicit account of additional evidence--for example, of biological plausibility or of biases in the studies. A Bayesian approach overcomes both these problems. A Bayesian analysis starts with a "prior" probability distribution for the value of interest (for example, a true relative risk)--based on previous knowledge--and adds the new evidence (via a model) to produce a "posterior" probability distribution. Because different experts will have different prior beliefs sensitivity analyses are important to assess the effects on the posterior distributions of these differences. Sensitivity analyses should also examine the effects of different assumptions about biases and about the model which links the data with the value of interest. One advantage of this method is that it allows such assumptions to be handled openly and explicitly. Data presented as a series of posterior probability distributions would be a much better guide to policy, reflecting the reality that degrees of belief are often continuous, not dichotomous, and often vary from one person to another in the face of inconclusive evidence.
Full text
PDF
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Arrighi H. M., Hertz-Picciotto I. The evolving concept of the healthy worker survivor effect. Epidemiology. 1994 Mar;5(2):189–196. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199403000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Buring J. E., Glynn R. J., Hennekens C. H. Calcium channel blockers and myocardial infarction. A hypothesis formulated but not yet tested. JAMA. 1995 Aug 23;274(8):654–655. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Eddy D. M., Hasselblad V., Shachter R. A Bayesian method for synthesizing evidence. The Confidence Profile Method. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1990;6(1):31–55. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300008928. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lewis M. A., Spitzer W. O., Heinemann L. A., MacRae K. D., Bruppacher R., Thorogood M. Third generation oral contraceptives and risk of myocardial infarction: an international case-control study. Transnational Research Group on Oral Contraceptives and the Health of Young Women. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):88–90. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lilford R. J., Jackson J. Equipoise and the ethics of randomization. J R Soc Med. 1995 Oct;88(10):552–559. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McPherson K. Third generation oral contraception and venous thromboembolism. BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):68–69. doi: 10.1136/bmj.312.7023.68. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Sacks H., Chalmers T. C., Smith H., Jr Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trials. Am J Med. 1982 Feb;72(2):233–240. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(82)90815-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Schulz K. F., Chalmers I., Grimes D. A., Altman D. G. Assessing the quality of randomization from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynecology journals. JAMA. 1994 Jul 13;272(2):125–128. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]