Dear all,
I know that the frequentist versus bayesian approach has been discussed
before.The following contribution to that debate being submitted by
Steve Simon last year.
"Should proponents of EBM be concerned about understanding the Bayesian
philosophy? In my opinion, no.I think we'll gradually see Bayesian
philosophy creep in to the design and analysis of clinical trials. For
example, there are good Bayesian solutions,I understand, to the tricky
issue of early stopping of clinical trials. ButI doubt that we will see
a wholesale rejection of both p-values AND confidence intervals in my
lifetime. Too many people like me fail to fully understand the Bayesian
paradigm for this to happen. So from a practical viewpoint, most of the
medical research for the foreseeable future will be analyzed using the
Frequentist paradigm."
Steve Simon, [log in to unmask],
Two papers by Goodman
Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 1: The P
Value Fallacy
Annals of Internal Medicine, 15 June 1999.
130:995-1004.
Steven N. Goodman, MD, PhD
Toward Evidence-Based Medical Statistics. 2: The
Bayes Factor
Annals of Internal Medicine, 15 June 1999.
130:1005-1013.
Steven N. Goodman, MD, PhD
revive the debate, with the editorial suggesting that frequentist
statistics have many and serious limitations and that medical
researchers should be encouraged to use the Bayesian approach to
statistical inference in the design and interpretation of their
studies.I like Steve Simon cannot claim full understanding of the
Bayesian paradigm,however,it does seem to have something to offer to the
practice of evidenced based health.
Any views on this matter will be gratefully received.
John Platt ([log in to unmask])
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|