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.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

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


  Vol. 169 No. 15, Aug 10/24, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  Special Article
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •eAppendix
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (6)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Pacemakers/ Defibrillators
 •Treatment Adherence
 •Cardiovascular System
 •Quality of Care
 •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 Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

HEALTH CARE REFORM
Bayesian Classification of Clinical Practice Guidelines

George A. Diamond, MD; Sanjay Kaul, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1431-1435.

Clinical practice guidelines are generally constructed from an admixture of expert consensus opinion, case-control studies, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and are categorized according to the methodological quality of the underlying data (level of evidence) and the trade-off between the benefits and risks of treatment (class of recommendation). The process is driven principally by conventional statistical significance and does not specifically consider the clinical importance of the alternative treatment effects. We herein propose a more formal quantitative algorithm for the construction of guidelines using Bayes's theorem to integrate the clinical trial evidence with a range of prior belief representing the skeptical point of view embodied in the null hypothesis (to the effect that treatment can be expected to produce no reduction in risk), and the enthusiastic point of view embodied in the alternative hypothesis (to the effect that treatment can be expected to produce a specified clinically important reduction in risk). The operative practical utility of this algorithm is illustrated by application to a representative meta-analysis of RCTs. We conclude that this quantitative schema has the potential to improve the quality and cost of evidence-based clinical management.




Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Building a Bayesian Bridge From Evidence to Guidelines: Comment on "Bayesian Classification of Clinical Practice Guidelines"
Steven N. Goodman
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(15):1436-1437.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Decreasing Hospital Costs While Maintaining Quality: Can It Be Done?
Katz
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:317-318.
FULL TEXT  





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