In Reply Dr Aberegg raises several important issues about our Bayesian reanalysis of the EOLIA trial.1
First, in raising the specter of confirmation bias, the author describes exactly the kind of intuitive Bayesian analysis that clinicians perform regularly, combining a hypothetical prior consistent with treatment harm and a hypothetical marginally “significant” trial result to imagine a posterior consistent with treatment harm. He may or may not be correct in speculating that such a result would not have been met by a Bayesian reanalysis; a prior for harm might have motivated this. Nevertheless, his concern about confirmation bias is not an argument against Bayesian analysis as such, but rather that these analyses should be performed consistently regardless of the anticipated result and specified as part of the design, a contention that we fully support.
Goligher EC, Tomlinson G, Slutsky AS. Post Hoc Bayesian Analyses—Reply. JAMA. 2019;321(16):1632–1633. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.1202
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: