Why clinicians are natural bayesians
- 5 May 2005
- Vol. 330 (7499), 1080-1083
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7499.1080
Abstract
Introduction Two main approaches are used to draw statistical inferences: frequentist and bayesian. Both are valid, although they differ methodologically and perhaps philosophically. However, the frequentist approach dominates the medical literature and is increasingly applied in clinical settings. This is ironic given that clinicians apply bayesian reasoning in framing and revising differential diagnoses without necessarily undergoing, or requiring, any formal training in bayesian statistics. To justify this assertion, this article will explain how bayesian reasoning is a natural part of clinical decision making, particularly as it pertains to the clinical history and physical examination, and how bayesian approaches are a powerful and intuitive approach to the differential diagnosis.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Evaluation of the Rapid Immunoassay Determine HIV 1/2 for Detection of Antibodies to Human Immunodeficiency Virus Types 1 and 2Journal of Clinical Microbiology, 2003
- Does This Patient Have Clubbing?JAMA, 2001
- Does This Patient Have Strep Throat?JAMA, 2000
- Does This Patient Have Breast Cancer?JAMA, 1999
- Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The Bayes FactorAnnals of Internal Medicine, 1999
- Does This Patient Have Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm?JAMA, 1999
- Users' guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? The Evidence-Based Medicine Working GroupJAMA, 1994
- A Tool for Judging Coronary Care Unit Admission Appropriateness, Valid for Both Real-Time and Retrospective UseMedical Care, 1991
- The Accuracy of the Physical Examination in the Diagnosis of Suspected AscitesJAMA, 1982
- Reliability of Stress Thallium-201 Scanning in the Clinical Evaluation of Coronary Artery DiseaseClinical Nuclear Medicine, 1979