Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Bayesian confusion

BMJ 2005; 330 doi: 10.1136/bmj.330.7504.1390-a (Published 9 June 2005)
Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:1390.2

This article has a correction

Please see: Why clinicians are natural bayesians: Authors' reply

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. David J R Hutchon, locum obstetrician and gynaecologist (DJRHutchon@Postmaster.co.uk)
  1. Greymouth, New Zealand

    EDITOR—Gill et al say that the pretest odds multiplied by the likelihood ratio of a test provides the post test odds.1 However, Bayes's work referred to probability rather than odds.


    Embedded Image

    Every part of clinical history and examination can be seen as a diagnostic test

    Credit: ROYAL ASIATIC SOCIETY/BAL

    Bayes developed …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    THIS WEEK'S POLL