This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Richard H. Browne, PhD
Texas Scottish Rite Hospital for Children Dallas

JAMA. 1995;274(11):873.

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

To the Editor.

—Drs Brophy and Joseph¹ propose the use of Bayesian methods as an alternative to classical methods for statistically analyzing clinical trial data. They indicate (correctly) that researchers want to say, "There's a 98% probability of t-PA mortality being less than SK mortality." Bayesian methods seem to provide this capability, using the same mathematics that allow us to use screening tests to conclude that there is a 92% chance that a patient with a positive test result has a particular disease. However, the mathematics that allow the latter declaration are based on frequencies of occurrence, and even classical statisticians agree with that. When modern Bayesians include a "prior probability distribution for the belief in the truth of a hypothesis," they are actually creating a metaphysical model of attitude change that borrows from the familiar world of frequency-based probabilities. The result (eg, probability oft-PA mortality being lower than . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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