Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 421

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 access
Spiegelhalter, D. J, Myles, J. P, Jones, D. R, Abrams, K. R·1999·BMJ

Abstract

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.319.7208.508

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 421

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.