The Probability of Reducing Hospitalization Rates for Bronchiolitis: A Bayesian Analysis
Dong, L.; Klassen, T. P.; Johnson, D. W.; Correll, R.; Gouin, S.; Bhatt, M.; Patel, H.; Joubert, G.; Black, K. J. L.; Turner, T. W. S.; Whitehouse, S. R.; Plint, A.; Heath, A.
Show abstract
Structured AbstractO_ST_ABSBackgroundC_ST_ABSBronchiolitis exerts a high burden on children, their families and the healthcare system. The Canadian Bronchiolitis Epinephrine Steroid Trial (CanBEST) assessed whether administering epinephrine alone, dexamethasone alone, or in combination (EpiDex) could reduce bronchiolitis-related hospitalizations among children less than 12 months of age compared to placebo. CanBEST demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in 7-day hospitalization risk with EpiDex in an unadjusted analysis but not after adjustment. ObjectiveTo explore the probability that EpiDex results in a reduction in hospitalizations using Bayesian methods. Study DesignUsing prior distributions that represent varying levels of preexisting enthusiasm or skepticism and information about the treatment effect before data were collected, the Bayesian distribution of the relative risk of hospitalization compared to placebo was determined. The probability that the treatment effect is less 1, 0.9, 0.8 and 0.6, indicating increasing reductions in hospitalization risk, are computed alongside 95% credible intervals. ResultsCombining a minimally informative prior distribution with the data from CanBEST provides comparable results to the original analysis. Unless strongly skeptical views about the effectiveness of EpiDex were considered, the 95% credible interval for the treatment effect lies below 1, indicating a reduction in hospitalizations. There is a 90% probability that EpiDex results in a clinically meaningful reduction in hospitalization of 10% even when incorporating skeptical views, with a 67% probability when considering strongly skeptical views. ConclusionA Bayesian analysis demonstrates a high chance that EpiDex reduces hospitalization rates for bronchiolitis, although strongly skeptical individuals may require additional evidence to change practice.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- The Effect of Famotidine on Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 92%
- Supporting Respiratory Epithelia and Lowering Inflammation to Effectively Treat Common Cold Symptoms: A Randomized Controlled Trial 92%
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Rethinking Blood Eosinophils for Assessing ICS Response in COPD: A Post-Hoc Analysis from FLAME 92%
- Development and Prospective Validation of a Transparent Deep Learning Algorithm for Predicting Need for Mechanical Ventilation 89%
- Immediate, remote smoking cessation intervention in participants undergoing a targeted lung health check: QuLIT2 a randomised controlled trial 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical hypoxemia score for outpatient child pneumonia care lacking pulse oximetry in Africa and South Asia 90%
- Association between endotypes of prematurity and pharmacological closure of patent ductus arteriosus: A systematic review and meta-analysis 89%
- More complaints than findings - Long-term pulmonary function in children and adolescents after COVID-19 88%
Similar papers in this journal
- AI-Driven Early Detection of Severe Influenza in Jiangsu, China: A Deep Learning Model Validated Through The Design of Multi-Center Clinical Trials and Prospective Real-World Deployment 90%
- Long term impact on lung function of patients with moderate and severe COVID-19. A prospective cohort study 90%
- Quality measures of two-stage newborn hearing screening: Systematic review with a Bayesian meta-analysis 90%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.