You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 169 No. 15, Aug 10/24, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Invited Commentary
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Pacemakers/ Defibrillators
 •Treatment Adherence
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Evidence-Based Medicine
 •Quality of Care, Other
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Arrhythmias
 •Health Care Reform
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

HEALTH CARE REFORM
Building a Bayesian Bridge From Evidence to Guidelines

Comment on "Bayesian Classification of Clinical Practice Guidelines"

Steven N. Goodman, MD, PhD

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1436-1437.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

It is hard to believe that a quarter century has passed since Diamond and Forrester started beating the Bayesian drum in their influential article titled "Clinical Trials and Statistical Verdicts: Probable Grounds for Appeal."1 The difference is that there is now a virtual orchestra playing along, and the audience has considerably enlarged. A significant sign of progress is the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA’s) draft guidance document on Bayesian methods for device applications that shows how the Bayesian approach can serve the needs of a regulatory agency concerned with holding bias and self-interest at bay.2

Diamond and Kaul, in their perspective, urge guideline writers to use Bayesian methods to quantify and classify the uncertainty underlying the evidence-based guidelines. There is both more and less than meets the eye in this proposal. In some important ways, the Bayesian aspect is a sideshow. To see what . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION
Author Affiliations: Division of Cardiology (Drs Diamond and Kaul) and the Cedars-Sinai Heart Institute (Dr Kaul), Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, and the David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles (Dr Diamond), Los Angeles.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Bayesian Classification of Clinical Practice Guidelines
George A. Diamond and Sanjay Kaul
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1431-1435.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.