The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Methods in health service research: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment
Open accessAbstract
This is the third of four articles Bayes's theorem arose from a posthumous publication in 1763 by Thomas Bayes, a non-conformist minister from Tunbridge Wells. Although it gives a simple and uncontroversial result in probability theory, specific uses of the theorem have been the subject of considerable controversy for more than two centuries. In recent years a more balanced and pragmatic perspective has emerged, and in this paper we review current thinking on the value of the Bayesian approach to health technology assessment. A concise definition of bayesian methods in health technology assessment has not been established, but we suggest the following: the explicit quantitative use of external evidence in the design, monitoring, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of a health technology assessment. This approach acknowledges that judgments about the benefits of a new technology will rarely be based solely on the results of a single study but should synthesise evidence from multiple sources—for example, pilot studies, trials of similar interventions, and even subjective judgments about the generalisability of the study's results. A bayesian perspective leads to an approach to clinical trials that is claimed to be more flexible and ethical than traditional methods,1 and to elegant ways of handling multiple substudies—for example, when simultaneously estimating the effects of a treatment on many subgroups.2 Proponents have also argued that a bayesian approach allows conclusions to be provided in a form that is most suitable for decisions specific to patients and decisions affecting public policy.3 #### Summary points Bayesian methods interpret data from a study in the light of external evidence and judgment, and the form in which conclusions are drawn contributes naturally to decision making Prior plausibility of hypotheses is taken into account, just as when interpreting the results of a diagnostic test Scepticism about large treatment effects can be formally …
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Bayesian approaches to randomized trials
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Freedman, L. S., & Parmar, M. K. B. (1994) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (Statistics in Society) · doi:10.2307/2983527 · Cited by 720
Self-citation
Cited by
Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019) · Journal of Planning Education and Research · doi:10.1177/0739456x17723971 · Cited by 3,467
Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: Combining direct and indirect evidence.
Caldwell, D. M., Ades, A. E., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2005) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7521.897 · Cited by 1,600
Bayesian methods in meta-analysis and evidence synthesis
Sutton, A. J., & Abrams, K. R. (2001) · Statistical Methods in Medical Research · doi:10.1177/096228020101000404 · Cited by 710
Self-citationLambert, P. C., Sutton, A. J., Burton, P. R., Abrams, K. R., & Jones, D. R. (2005) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.2112 · Cited by 511
Self-citationA review of evidence of health benefit from artificial neural networks in medical intervention
Lisboa, P. J. G. (2002) · Neural Networks · doi:10.1016/s0893-6080(01)00111-3 · Cited by 458
Metadata
- Authors
- Spiegelhalter, D. J., Myles, J. P., Jones, D. R., & Abrams, K. R.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-08-21
- Volume
- 319
- Issue
- 7208
- Pages
- 508-512
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W2093243674
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 15.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods in health service research: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.319.7208.508
- The paper
- Spiegelhalter, D. J., Myles, J. P., Jones, D. R., & Abrams, K. R. (1999). Methods in health service research: An introduction to bayesian methods in health technology assessment. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7208.508
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.