Could our pretest probabilities become evidence based?

A prospective survey of hospital practice

Scott Richardson, Walter A. Polashenski, Brett W. Robbins

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the proportion of patients on our clinical service who presented with clinical problems for which research evidence was available to inform estimates of pretest probability. We also aimed to discern whether any of this evidence was of sufficient quality that we would want to use it for clinical decision making. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series and literature survey. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans' Affairs hospital in south Texas. PATIENTS: Patients admitted during the 3 study months for diagnostic evaluation. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' active clinical problems were identified prospectively and recorded at the time of discharge, transfer, or death. We electronically searched MEDLINE and hand-searched bibliographies to find citations that reported research evidence about the frequency of underlying diseases that cause these clinical problems. We critically appraised selected citations and ranked them on a hierarchy of evidence. RESULTS: We admitted 122 patients for diagnostic evaluation, in whom we identified 45 different principal clinical problems. For 35 of the 45 problems (78%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 66% to 90%), we found citations that qualified as disease probability evidence. Thus, 111 of our 122 patients (91%; 95% CI, 86% to 96%) had clinical problems for which evidence was available in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: During 3 months on our hospital medicine service, almost all of the patients admitted for diagnostic evaluation had clinical problems for which evidence is available to guide our estimates of pretest probability. If confirmed by others, these data suggest that clinicians' pretest probabilities could become evidence based.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)203-208
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of General Internal Medicine
Volume18
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2003

Fingerprint

Confidence Intervals
Hospital Medicine
Veterans Hospitals
Bibliography
Research
MEDLINE
Surveys and Questionnaires
Inpatients
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Differential diagnosis
  • Evidence-based medicine
  • Pretest probability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Could our pretest probabilities become evidence based? A prospective survey of hospital practice. / Richardson, Scott; Polashenski, Walter A.; Robbins, Brett W.

In: Journal of General Internal Medicine, Vol. 18, No. 3, 01.03.2003, p. 203-208.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{24c8724e5f1b4510ae9543c989cf2caf,
title = "Could our pretest probabilities become evidence based?: A prospective survey of hospital practice",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the proportion of patients on our clinical service who presented with clinical problems for which research evidence was available to inform estimates of pretest probability. We also aimed to discern whether any of this evidence was of sufficient quality that we would want to use it for clinical decision making. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series and literature survey. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans' Affairs hospital in south Texas. PATIENTS: Patients admitted during the 3 study months for diagnostic evaluation. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' active clinical problems were identified prospectively and recorded at the time of discharge, transfer, or death. We electronically searched MEDLINE and hand-searched bibliographies to find citations that reported research evidence about the frequency of underlying diseases that cause these clinical problems. We critically appraised selected citations and ranked them on a hierarchy of evidence. RESULTS: We admitted 122 patients for diagnostic evaluation, in whom we identified 45 different principal clinical problems. For 35 of the 45 problems (78{\%}; 95{\%} confidence interval [95{\%} CI], 66{\%} to 90{\%}), we found citations that qualified as disease probability evidence. Thus, 111 of our 122 patients (91{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 86{\%} to 96{\%}) had clinical problems for which evidence was available in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: During 3 months on our hospital medicine service, almost all of the patients admitted for diagnostic evaluation had clinical problems for which evidence is available to guide our estimates of pretest probability. If confirmed by others, these data suggest that clinicians' pretest probabilities could become evidence based.",
keywords = "Differential diagnosis, Evidence-based medicine, Pretest probability",
author = "Scott Richardson and Polashenski, {Walter A.} and Robbins, {Brett W.}",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20215.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "18",
pages = "203--208",
journal = "Journal of General Internal Medicine",
issn = "0884-8734",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Could our pretest probabilities become evidence based?

T2 - A prospective survey of hospital practice

AU - Richardson, Scott

AU - Polashenski, Walter A.

AU - Robbins, Brett W.

PY - 2003/3/1

Y1 - 2003/3/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the proportion of patients on our clinical service who presented with clinical problems for which research evidence was available to inform estimates of pretest probability. We also aimed to discern whether any of this evidence was of sufficient quality that we would want to use it for clinical decision making. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series and literature survey. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans' Affairs hospital in south Texas. PATIENTS: Patients admitted during the 3 study months for diagnostic evaluation. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' active clinical problems were identified prospectively and recorded at the time of discharge, transfer, or death. We electronically searched MEDLINE and hand-searched bibliographies to find citations that reported research evidence about the frequency of underlying diseases that cause these clinical problems. We critically appraised selected citations and ranked them on a hierarchy of evidence. RESULTS: We admitted 122 patients for diagnostic evaluation, in whom we identified 45 different principal clinical problems. For 35 of the 45 problems (78%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 66% to 90%), we found citations that qualified as disease probability evidence. Thus, 111 of our 122 patients (91%; 95% CI, 86% to 96%) had clinical problems for which evidence was available in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: During 3 months on our hospital medicine service, almost all of the patients admitted for diagnostic evaluation had clinical problems for which evidence is available to guide our estimates of pretest probability. If confirmed by others, these data suggest that clinicians' pretest probabilities could become evidence based.

AB - OBJECTIVE: We sought to measure the proportion of patients on our clinical service who presented with clinical problems for which research evidence was available to inform estimates of pretest probability. We also aimed to discern whether any of this evidence was of sufficient quality that we would want to use it for clinical decision making. DESIGN: Prospective, consecutive case series and literature survey. SETTING: Inpatient medical service of a university-affiliated Veterans' Affairs hospital in south Texas. PATIENTS: Patients admitted during the 3 study months for diagnostic evaluation. MEASUREMENTS: Patients' active clinical problems were identified prospectively and recorded at the time of discharge, transfer, or death. We electronically searched MEDLINE and hand-searched bibliographies to find citations that reported research evidence about the frequency of underlying diseases that cause these clinical problems. We critically appraised selected citations and ranked them on a hierarchy of evidence. RESULTS: We admitted 122 patients for diagnostic evaluation, in whom we identified 45 different principal clinical problems. For 35 of the 45 problems (78%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 66% to 90%), we found citations that qualified as disease probability evidence. Thus, 111 of our 122 patients (91%; 95% CI, 86% to 96%) had clinical problems for which evidence was available in the medical literature. CONCLUSIONS: During 3 months on our hospital medicine service, almost all of the patients admitted for diagnostic evaluation had clinical problems for which evidence is available to guide our estimates of pretest probability. If confirmed by others, these data suggest that clinicians' pretest probabilities could become evidence based.

KW - Differential diagnosis

KW - Evidence-based medicine

KW - Pretest probability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037354589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037354589&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20215.x

DO - 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20215.x

M3 - Article

VL - 18

SP - 203

EP - 208

JO - Journal of General Internal Medicine

JF - Journal of General Internal Medicine

SN - 0884-8734

IS - 3

ER -