Comparison of Study Methods Between Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches Using the Pragmatic Randomized Optimal Platelet and Plasma Ratios Trial
Does a 1:1:1 resuscitation strategy statistically differ from a 1:1:2 strategy with regards to mortality?What is the probability that a 1:1:1 is superior or inferior to a 1:1:2 resuscitation strategy with regards to mortality?Null hypothesis is true.There are no mortality differences between the 1:1:1 and 1:1:2 strategies (null hypothesis).No preconceived assumption unless using priors.Noninformative prior results in pure assessment of data present.Assessment for statistically significant differences.Can only reject or fail to reject the null hypothesis.Cannot accept null or alternative hypothesis.Probability based.Able to directly compare 2 hypotheses.Can accept or reject any hypothesis.Based on Requires power analysis.Outcomes based on series of hypothetical data sets.Secondary outcomes not powered for appropriate statistical inference.At risk for type I and type II errors.No No power analysis required.Outcomes based on data physically present.Secondary outcomes able to be directly assessed based on findings.No risk for type I and type II errors.24-h Mortality: 12.7% (1:1:1) vs 17% (1:1:2); RR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.52-1.08; 30-d Mortality: 22.4% (1:1:1) vs 26.1% (1:1:2); RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.65-1.12; 24-hour Mortality: 93% probability that 1:1:1 is superior to 1:1:2; RR, 0.72; 95% CrI, 0.45-1.11; BF 13.7.30-day Mortality: 87% probability that 1:1:1 is superior to 1:1:2; RR, 0.82; 95% CrI, 0.57-1.16; BF 6.56The mortality rates between the 1:1:1 and 1:1:2 resuscitation strategies were not statistically different at 24 hours or 30 days.Negative trial; unable to demonstrate superiority based on frequentist approach.There was a 93% and a 87% probability that a 1:1:1 resuscitation strategy was superior to a 1:1:2 approach at 24 hours and 30 days, respectively.Able to demonstrate superiority.Abbreviations: CrI, credible interval; RR, risk ratio.