A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds

Mark H. Ebell, Isabella Locatelli, Nicolas Senn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

8 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Our objective was to determine the test and treatment thresholds for common acute primary care conditions. We presented 200 clinicians with a series of web-based clinical vignettes, describing patients with possible influenza, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and urinary tract infection (UTI). We randomly varied the probability of disease and asked whether the clinician wanted to rule out disease, order tests or rule in disease. By randomly varying the probability, we obtained clinical decisions across a broad range of disease probabilities that we used to create threshold curves. For influenza, the test (4.5% vs 32%, p<0.001) and treatment (55% vs 68%, p=0.11) thresholds were lower for US compared with Swiss physicians. US physicians had somewhat higher test (3.8% vs 0.7%, p=0.107) and treatment (76% vs 58%, p=0.005) thresholds for ACS than Swiss physicians. For both groups, the range between test and treatment thresholds was greater for ACS than for influenza (which is sensible, given the consequences of incorrect diagnosis). For pneumonia, US physicians had a trend towards higher test thresholds and lower treatment thresholds (48% vs 64%, p=0.076) than Swiss physicians. The DVT and UTI scenarios did not provide easily interpretable data, perhaps due to poor wording of the vignettes. We have developed a novel approach for determining decision thresholds. We found important differences in thresholds for US and Swiss physicians that may be a function of differences in healthcare systems. Our results can also guide development of clinical decision rules and guidelines.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)41-47
Number of pages7
JournalEvidence-Based Medicine
Volume20
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Physicians
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Human Influenza
Urinary Tract Infections
Venous Thrombosis
Pneumonia
Therapeutics
Primary Health Care
Guidelines
Delivery of Health Care

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds. / Ebell, Mark H.; Locatelli, Isabella; Senn, Nicolas.

In: Evidence-Based Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 2, 01.01.2015, p. 41-47.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Ebell, Mark H. ; Locatelli, Isabella ; Senn, Nicolas. / A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds. In: Evidence-Based Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 20, No. 2. pp. 41-47.
@article{34b3a34b52224aa0857fbef73d97b019,
title = "A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds",
abstract = "Our objective was to determine the test and treatment thresholds for common acute primary care conditions. We presented 200 clinicians with a series of web-based clinical vignettes, describing patients with possible influenza, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and urinary tract infection (UTI). We randomly varied the probability of disease and asked whether the clinician wanted to rule out disease, order tests or rule in disease. By randomly varying the probability, we obtained clinical decisions across a broad range of disease probabilities that we used to create threshold curves. For influenza, the test (4.5{\%} vs 32{\%}, p<0.001) and treatment (55{\%} vs 68{\%}, p=0.11) thresholds were lower for US compared with Swiss physicians. US physicians had somewhat higher test (3.8{\%} vs 0.7{\%}, p=0.107) and treatment (76{\%} vs 58{\%}, p=0.005) thresholds for ACS than Swiss physicians. For both groups, the range between test and treatment thresholds was greater for ACS than for influenza (which is sensible, given the consequences of incorrect diagnosis). For pneumonia, US physicians had a trend towards higher test thresholds and lower treatment thresholds (48{\%} vs 64{\%}, p=0.076) than Swiss physicians. The DVT and UTI scenarios did not provide easily interpretable data, perhaps due to poor wording of the vignettes. We have developed a novel approach for determining decision thresholds. We found important differences in thresholds for US and Swiss physicians that may be a function of differences in healthcare systems. Our results can also guide development of clinical decision rules and guidelines.",
author = "Ebell, {Mark H.} and Isabella Locatelli and Nicolas Senn",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/ebmed-2014-110140",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "20",
pages = "41--47",
journal = "Evidence-Based Medicine",
issn = "1356-5524",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A novel approach to the determination of clinical decision thresholds

AU - Ebell, Mark H.

AU - Locatelli, Isabella

AU - Senn, Nicolas

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Our objective was to determine the test and treatment thresholds for common acute primary care conditions. We presented 200 clinicians with a series of web-based clinical vignettes, describing patients with possible influenza, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and urinary tract infection (UTI). We randomly varied the probability of disease and asked whether the clinician wanted to rule out disease, order tests or rule in disease. By randomly varying the probability, we obtained clinical decisions across a broad range of disease probabilities that we used to create threshold curves. For influenza, the test (4.5% vs 32%, p<0.001) and treatment (55% vs 68%, p=0.11) thresholds were lower for US compared with Swiss physicians. US physicians had somewhat higher test (3.8% vs 0.7%, p=0.107) and treatment (76% vs 58%, p=0.005) thresholds for ACS than Swiss physicians. For both groups, the range between test and treatment thresholds was greater for ACS than for influenza (which is sensible, given the consequences of incorrect diagnosis). For pneumonia, US physicians had a trend towards higher test thresholds and lower treatment thresholds (48% vs 64%, p=0.076) than Swiss physicians. The DVT and UTI scenarios did not provide easily interpretable data, perhaps due to poor wording of the vignettes. We have developed a novel approach for determining decision thresholds. We found important differences in thresholds for US and Swiss physicians that may be a function of differences in healthcare systems. Our results can also guide development of clinical decision rules and guidelines.

AB - Our objective was to determine the test and treatment thresholds for common acute primary care conditions. We presented 200 clinicians with a series of web-based clinical vignettes, describing patients with possible influenza, acute coronary syndrome (ACS), pneumonia, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and urinary tract infection (UTI). We randomly varied the probability of disease and asked whether the clinician wanted to rule out disease, order tests or rule in disease. By randomly varying the probability, we obtained clinical decisions across a broad range of disease probabilities that we used to create threshold curves. For influenza, the test (4.5% vs 32%, p<0.001) and treatment (55% vs 68%, p=0.11) thresholds were lower for US compared with Swiss physicians. US physicians had somewhat higher test (3.8% vs 0.7%, p=0.107) and treatment (76% vs 58%, p=0.005) thresholds for ACS than Swiss physicians. For both groups, the range between test and treatment thresholds was greater for ACS than for influenza (which is sensible, given the consequences of incorrect diagnosis). For pneumonia, US physicians had a trend towards higher test thresholds and lower treatment thresholds (48% vs 64%, p=0.076) than Swiss physicians. The DVT and UTI scenarios did not provide easily interpretable data, perhaps due to poor wording of the vignettes. We have developed a novel approach for determining decision thresholds. We found important differences in thresholds for US and Swiss physicians that may be a function of differences in healthcare systems. Our results can also guide development of clinical decision rules and guidelines.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928121739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928121739&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110140

DO - 10.1136/ebmed-2014-110140

M3 - Article

VL - 20

SP - 41

EP - 47

JO - Evidence-Based Medicine

JF - Evidence-Based Medicine

SN - 1356-5524

IS - 2

ER -