  Clinical decisions are often guided by clinical prediction models or
diagnostic tests. Decision curve analysis (DCA) combines classical assessment
of predictive performance with the consequences of using these strategies for
clinical decision-making. In DCA, the best decision strategy is the one that
maximizes the so-called net benefit: the net number of true positives (or
negatives) provided by a given strategy. In this decision-analytic approach,
often only point estimates are published. If uncertainty is reported, a
risk-neutral interpretation is recommended: it motivates further research
without changing the conclusions based on currently-available data. However,
when it comes to new decision strategies, replacing the current Standard of
Care must be carefully considered -- prematurely implementing a suboptimal
strategy poses potentially irrecoverable costs. In this risk-averse setting,
quantifying uncertainty may also inform whether the available data provides
enough evidence to change current clinical practice. Here, we employ Bayesian
approaches to DCA addressing four fundamental concerns when evaluating clinical
decision strategies: (i) which strategies are clinically useful, (ii) what is
the best available decision strategy, (iii) pairwise comparisons between
strategies, and (iv) the expected net benefit loss associated with the current
level of uncertainty. While often consistent with frequentist point estimates,
fully Bayesian DCA allows for an intuitive probabilistic interpretation
framework and the incorporation of prior evidence. We evaluate the methods
using simulation and provide a comprehensive case study. Software
implementation is available in the bayesDCA R package. Ultimately, the Bayesian
DCA workflow may help clinicians and health policymakers adopt better-informed
decisions.
