Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choice of priors: how much scepticism is appropriate?

  • Correspondence
  • Published:
Intensive Care Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

References

  1. Granholm A, Munch MW, Myatra SN et al (2021) Dexamethasone 12 mg versus 6 mg for patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxaemia: a pre-planned, secondary Bayesian analysis of the COVID STEROID 2 trial. Intensive Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06573-1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Granholm A, Munch MW, Myatra SN et al (2021) Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 65:702–710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. COVID STEROID 2 Trial Group (2021) Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of dexamethasone on the number of days alive without life support in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia: the COVID STEROID 2 randomized trial. JAMA 326:1807–1817

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. de Grooth H, Elbers P (2021) Pick your prior: scepticism about sceptical prior beliefs. Intensive Care Med. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06602-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zampieri FG, Casey JD, Shankar-Hari M, Harrell FE Jr, Harhay MO (2021) Using Bayesian methods to augment the interpretation of critical care trials. an overview of theory and example reanalysis of the alveolar recruitment for acute respiratory distress syndrome trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 203:543–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation (Grant number 0062998) and supported by Rigshospitalet’s Research Council (E-22703–06). AG’s salary is paid by a grant from Sygeforsikringen “danmark”, not related to the COVID STEROID 2 trial. None of the funders had any influence on the trial or on this correspondence.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Intensive Care 4131, Copenhagen University Hospital - Rigshospitalet, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders Granholm, Marie Warrer Munch, Morten Hylander Møller & Anders Perner

  2. Collaboration for Research in Intensive Care (CRIC), Copenhagen, Denmark

    Anders Granholm, Marie Warrer Munch, Morten Hylander Møller & Anders Perner

  3. Department of Public Health, Section of Biostatistics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Theis Lange

Authors
  1. Anders Granholm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marie Warrer Munch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Morten Hylander Møller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Theis Lange
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anders Perner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Writing—original draft: AG. Writing—review and editing: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anders Granholm.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The Department of Intensive Care at Rigshospitalet (AG, MWM, MHM, and AP) has received grants from the Novo Nordisk Foundation during the conduct of the trial; and grants from Pfizer, Fresenius Kabi, The Novo Nordisk Foundation, and Sygeforsikringen “danmark” outside the submitted work.

Ethics approval

Details on ethics approvals of the COVID STEROID 2 trial are presented elsewhere [1–3]. No further approvals were required for this correspondence.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Granholm, A., Munch, M.W., Møller, M.H. et al. Choice of priors: how much scepticism is appropriate?. Intensive Care Med 48, 372–373 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06613-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-021-06613-w

Search

Navigation