A previous post referred to the difficulty some researchers / reviewers have in distinguishing between **absence of evidence and evidence of absence**, even though this issue has been well discussed for almost 30 years (see here and here). Despite the fact that these publications have several thousand citations, this remains an important problem, even in high impact medical journals.

For example, I recently read a NEJM randomized clinical trial (RCT) investigating whether the addition of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) to standard conventional CPR (cCPR) can improve survival and diminish anoxic brain injury. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a frequent event and its devastating consequences are only partially mitigated by rapid commencement of basic life support with high-quality cCPR. There remains a substantial subset of individuals who do not respond rapidly to these measures and whether eCPR can improve outcomes is an important clinical question. In this trial, the primary outcome, 30 day survival without significant neurological deficit, was an odds ratio of 1.4 (95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 3.5; P = 0.52) in favor eCPR. This lead to the abstract conclusion “In patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR had similar effects on survival with a favorable neurological outcome”.

This trial addressed an important clinical question in the most challenging of research environments and the authors are to be congratulated on their trial design, its execution, and a nuanced discussion in the body of the article. However the constraints of standard statistical analyses limits the quantitative appreciation of their data, and prevents a full and comprehensive data exploitation and updating of past knowledge. Trials that fail to meet statistical significance and are often incorrectly thought of as “negative” trials, and the null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) paradigm favors this confusion between “*absence of evidence and evidence of absence*”.

The goal of this post is to demonstrate that a Bayesian perspective, by concentrating on posterior probabilities, permits additional insights into the specific clinical question and intrinsically avoids these misinterpretations.

The post does not reiterate the many other reasons to be wary of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), p values and confidence intervals (see here). Rather it assumes the reader has perhaps heard that Bayesian methods mirror our intuitive learning and diagnostic processes and is curious about its potential application to RCT analyses and interpretations. Bayesian approaches provide benefits over standard statistical analyses by avoiding dichotomizing results into statistical significance or not, with an obligatory loss of information and understanding. This is accomplished by concentrating on direct estimation of the parameters of interest and providing direct probability statements regarding their uncertainty (herein the risk of survival with intact neurological status). The price to be paid for these benefits is the need to specify a prior distribution before seeing the current data.

These probability statements arise from the posterior distribution according to the Bayes Thereom, expressed as follows: \[ \text{Posterior} = \frac{\text{Probability of the data} * \text{Prior}}{\text{Normalizing Constant}} \]

Therefore, in addition to the current data summarized by the probability of the data (likelihood function), prior probability distributions are required. Because our main focus is the analysis and interpretation of the current RCT alone, an initial analysis may use a default vague parameter prior \[log(\theta) \sim Normal [0, 2.50]\], thereby assuring that the posterior distribution is dominated by the observed data.

Posterior distributions are summarized with medians and 95% highest-density intervals (credible intervals (CrI)), defined as the narrowest interval containing 95% of the probability density function. Bayesian analyses permit not only calculations of the posterior probability of any additional survival with eCPR (OR >1.00), but also of clinically meaningful benefits. While there is no universal definition for a clinically meaningful benefit, a survival OR >1.10 may be an acceptable threshold for many. Bayesian analyses also allows calculation of the probability between any two points. For example, rather than simply comparing if the survival of one treatment is better than another, one can calculate a range of practical equivalence (ROPE) between treatments. While different ranges may be proposed, +/- 10% seems a reasonable small difference that many would consider as equivalent.

The graphical presentation of these results is shown below

This Bayesian analysis, using a default vague prior, produces an odds ratio (OR) 1.32 with 95% CrI 0.54 - 3.22) which aligns with the original analysis (OR, 1.4; 95% CI 0.5 - 3.5) confirms the minimal impact of the default vague prior and reveals a Bayesian analysis completely dominated by the observed data. The eCPR probability density function for improved survival with eCPR is 73% with a 66% probability that this exceeds the clinically defined meaningful cutpoint of at least a 10% survival benefit. The probability of equivalence between the two techniques is 13%.

The “take home” message from this Bayesian reanalysis is that standard statistical analyses resulting in a conclusion of “similar survival effects of eCPR to cCPR” may be overly simplified and potentially inaccurate. This Bayesian analysis demonstrates that at present definitive conclusions regarding the superiority, inferiority, or equivalence of either approach are impossible. Rather the possibility of a clinically meaningful benefit, or less likely the possibility of clinically meaningful harm, has not been reasonably excluded and continued research is necessary to clarify the residual uncertainties. The final dilemma confronting clinicians is that even Bayesian analyses of randomized trials provide only probability estimates for average treatment effects and not for the more elusive individual treatment effect.

Of course, an added benefit of the Bayesian analysis is its ability to incorporate previous knowledge. The statistical code for this analysis can be found here and a more detailed non-peer reviewed manuscript may be found here.

## Citation

```
@online{brophy2023,
author = {Brophy, Jay},
title = {Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence of Absence},
date = {2023-03-19},
url = {https://brophyj.github.io/posts/2023-03-19-my-blog-post/},
langid = {en}
}
```