Why are not There More Bayesian Clinical Trials? Perceived Barriers and Educational Preferences Among Medical Researchers Involved in Drug Development

Abstract

Objective and Background The clinical trials community has been hesitant to adopt Bayesian statistical methods, which are often more flexible and efficient with more naturally interpretable results than frequentist methods. We aimed to identify self-reported barriers to implementing Bayesian methods and preferences for becoming comfortable with them. Methods We developed a 22-question survey submitted to medical researchers (non-statisticians) from industry, academia, and regulatory agencies. Question areas included demographics, experience, comfort levels with Bayesian analyses, perceived barriers to these analyses, and preferences for increasing familiarity with Bayesian methods. Results Of the 323 respondents, most were affiliated with pharmaceutical companies (33.4%), clinical research organizations (29.7%), and regulatory agencies (18.6%). The rest represented academia, medical practice, or other. Over 56% of respondents expressed little to no comfort in interpreting Bayesian analyses. “Insufficient knowledge of Bayesian approaches” was ranked the most important perceived barrier to implementing Bayesian methods by a plurality (48%). Of the approaches listed, in-person training was the most preferred for gaining comfort with Bayesian methods. Conclusions Based on these survey results, we recommend that introductory level training on Bayesian statistics be presented in an in-person workshop that could also be broadcast online with live Q&A. Other approaches such as online training or collaborative projects may be better suited for higher-level trainings where instructors may assume a baseline understanding of Bayesian statistics. Increased coverage of Bayesian methods at medical conferences and medical school trainings would help improve comfort and overcome the substantial knowledge barriers medical researchers face when implementing these methods. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s43441-021-00357-x.

Impact of redefining statistical significance on P-hacking and false positive rates: An agent-based model

“…There would be even more additional training required if the alternative to P values was Bayesian analysis. A recent survey found that almost half of 323 clinical trial medical researchers reported insufficient knowledge as the main reason they did not use Bayesian statistics [ 73 ]. Thus, changing the P value threshold seems, at this point, a modest proposal that might help correct the problem of false positive results identified in many social and behavioral academic disciplines.…”

Balanced resuscitation and earlier mortality end points: bayesian post hoc analysis of the PROPPR trial

“… 28 A lack of familiarity with Bayesian concepts within the medical community must be overcome prior to more widespread adoption into clinical practice and incorporation into prospective studies. 29 Furthermore, many currently published Bayesian analyses represent unplanned, post hoc analyses of primary studies, often in an attempt to overcome underpowering. Although these reports add to the interpretation of their associated primary studies, a key take-away should be that more clinical trials should be analyzed primarily using Bayesian techniques as they may overcome many challenges clinical researchers face.…”

Application of Bayesian approaches in drug development: starting a virtuous cycle

“…Similar barriers are present in the industry. The Drug Information Association Bayesian Scientific Working Group surveyed organizations and found that insufficient practical knowledge was a hurdle to adopting Bayesian approaches 42 . This issue is not unique to large or small companies.…”