The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial was recently published and has been a point of controversey. Despite results suggesting that capillary refill is safe, if not beneficial, when guiding treatment as compared to lactate level, the trial was deemed negative based on the null-hypothesis testing framework that is standard across the current research literature.
A rich discussion ensued online and Dan Lane demonstrated a Bayesian analysis of the result here in R based on methods from this paper.
This notebook provides a Python implementation of Dan's code, examining the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK trial, and then applies the same approach to the EOLIA trial. The latter has a more thorough Bayesian analysis published here. The goal of this notebook is to provided clinicians keen on using this approach to interpret clinical trial results the requisite code.