Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Bayesian analysis of a mastitis control plan to investigate the influence of veterinary prior beliefs on clinical interpretation

By Martin J. Green, William J. Browne, L.E. Green, Andrew J. Bradley, K.A. Leach, J.E. Breen and Graham F. Medley


The fundamental objective for health research is to determine whether changes should be made to clinical decisions. Decisions made by veterinary surgeons in the light of new research evidence are known to be influenced by their prior beliefs, especially their initial opinions about the plausibility of possible results. In this paper, clinical trial results for a bovine mastitis control plan were evaluated within a Bayesian context, to incorporate a community of prior distributions that represented a\ud spectrum of clinical prior beliefs. The aim was to quantify the effect of veterinary surgeons’ initial viewpoints on the interpretation of the trial results.\ud \ud A Bayesian analysis was conducted using Markov chain Monte Carlo procedures. Stochastic models included a financial cost attributed to a change in clinical mastitis following implementation of the control plan. Prior distributions were incorporated that covered a realistic range of possible clinical viewpoints, including scepticism, enthusiasm and uncertainty. Posterior distributions revealed\ud important differences in the financial gain that clinicians with different starting viewpoints would anticipate from the mastitis control plan, given the actual research results. For example, a severe sceptic would ascribe a probability of 0.50 for a return of <£5 per cow in an average herd that implemented the plan, whereas an enthusiast would ascribe this probability for a return of >£20 per cow. Simulations using increased trial sizes indicated that if the original study was four times as\ud large, an initial sceptic would be more convinced about the efficacy of the control plan but would still anticipate less financial return than an initial enthusiast would anticipate after the original study. In conclusion, it is possible to estimate how clinicians’ prior beliefs influence their interpretation of research evidence. Further research on the extent to which different interpretations of evidence result in changes to clinical practice would be worthwhile

Publisher: Elsevier
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:
Provided by: Nottingham ePrints

Suggested articles


  1. 1995;311:1621–1625. [PubMed: 8555809] Marshall EC, Spiegelhalter DJ. Approximate cross-validatory predictive checks in disease mapping.
  2. (2004). 1998;317:1170–1171. [PubMed: 9794846] Senn S. Trying to be precise about vagueness.
  3. (1996). A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials. doi
  4. A survey of the incidence rate and aetiology of mastitis on dairy farms in England and Wales. Vet. Rec 2007;160:253–258. [PubMed: 17322356] Brooks SP, Gelman A. Alternative methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations.
  5. (1994). An application of robust Bayesian-analysis to a medical experiment.
  6. (2002). Clinical significance not statistical significance: a simple Bayesian alternative to p values.
  7. (1997). Clinicians’ attitudes to clinical trials of cancer therapy.
  8. (1989). Comment on ‘Investigating therapies of potentially great benefit: ECMO’,
  9. (2009). Page 10 Prev Vet Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC
  10. (2009). Page 9 Prev Vet Med. Author manuscript; available in PMC
  11. (1991). Perceptions of patients and physicians involved in clinical trials: an overview of the literature. Therapie 2006;61:425–437. [PubMed: 17243272] Hughes MD. Practical reporting of Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Drug Inf.
  12. (1995). Placing trials in context using Bayesian-analysis–gusto revisited by reverend Bayes.
  13. (1991). Summary and discussion for Statistical issues in the pharmaceutical industry: analysis and reporting of phase III clinical trials including kinetic/dynamic analysis and Bayesian analysis. Drug Inf.
  14. The chart trials–Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. Stat. Med 1994;13:1297–1312. [PubMed: 7973211] Peto R, Baigent C. Trials: the next 50 years–large scale randomised evidence of moderate benefits.
  15. (2003). Uncertain Judgements, Eliciting Experts’ Probabilities.
  16. (2004). WinBUGS Version 1.4.1. MRC Biostatistics Unit;

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.