Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools

Adrienne G. Randolph, Gordon H. Guyatt, James E. Calvin, Gordon Doig, Scott Richardson, Deborah J. Cook

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

88 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives: Clinical prediction rules and models are developed by applying statistical techniques to find combinations of predictors that categorize a heterogeneous group of patients into subgroups of risk. Our goal is to teach clinicians how to evaluate the validity, results, and applicability of articles describing clinical prediction tools. Clinical Example: An article describing a rule to predict the need for intensive care unit care admission in patients presenting to the emergency room with chest pain. Recommendations: Valid clinical prediction tools are developed by completely following up a representative group of patients, by evaluating all potential predictors and testing the independent contribution of each predictor variable, and by ensuring that the outcomes were independent of the predictors. To evaluate the results of an article describing a clinical prediction tool, clinicians need to know what the prediction tool is, how well it categorizes patients into different levels of risk, and what the confidence intervals are around the risk estimates. Valid prediction tools are not applicable in every patient population. Before patient care application, the clinician should ensure that the tool maintains its prediction power in a new sample of patients, that the patients are similar to patients used to test the tool, and that the tool has been shown to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusions: There has been an increase in the development and validation of clinical prediction rules and models. It is important to evaluate the validity and reliability of these prediction tools before application.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1603-1612
Number of pages10
JournalCritical Care Medicine
Volume26
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 13 1998
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Reproducibility of Results
Patient Advocacy
Patient Admission
Chest Pain
Intensive Care Units
Hospital Emergency Service
Patient Care
Confidence Intervals
Population
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Clinical prediction rules
  • Critical appraisal
  • Evidence based medicine
  • Models
  • Prediction
  • Prognosis
  • Regression

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Randolph, A. G., Guyatt, G. H., Calvin, J. E., Doig, G., Richardson, S., & Cook, D. J. (1998). Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools. Critical Care Medicine, 26(9), 1603-1612. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199809000-00036

Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools. / Randolph, Adrienne G.; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Calvin, James E.; Doig, Gordon; Richardson, Scott; Cook, Deborah J.

In: Critical Care Medicine, Vol. 26, No. 9, 13.10.1998, p. 1603-1612.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Randolph, AG, Guyatt, GH, Calvin, JE, Doig, G, Richardson, S & Cook, DJ 1998, 'Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools', Critical Care Medicine, vol. 26, no. 9, pp. 1603-1612. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199809000-00036
Randolph, Adrienne G. ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Calvin, James E. ; Doig, Gordon ; Richardson, Scott ; Cook, Deborah J. / Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools. In: Critical Care Medicine. 1998 ; Vol. 26, No. 9. pp. 1603-1612.
@article{195ff9f85ccb421d9e44e039c410bda7,
title = "Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools",
abstract = "Objectives: Clinical prediction rules and models are developed by applying statistical techniques to find combinations of predictors that categorize a heterogeneous group of patients into subgroups of risk. Our goal is to teach clinicians how to evaluate the validity, results, and applicability of articles describing clinical prediction tools. Clinical Example: An article describing a rule to predict the need for intensive care unit care admission in patients presenting to the emergency room with chest pain. Recommendations: Valid clinical prediction tools are developed by completely following up a representative group of patients, by evaluating all potential predictors and testing the independent contribution of each predictor variable, and by ensuring that the outcomes were independent of the predictors. To evaluate the results of an article describing a clinical prediction tool, clinicians need to know what the prediction tool is, how well it categorizes patients into different levels of risk, and what the confidence intervals are around the risk estimates. Valid prediction tools are not applicable in every patient population. Before patient care application, the clinician should ensure that the tool maintains its prediction power in a new sample of patients, that the patients are similar to patients used to test the tool, and that the tool has been shown to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusions: There has been an increase in the development and validation of clinical prediction rules and models. It is important to evaluate the validity and reliability of these prediction tools before application.",
keywords = "Clinical prediction rules, Critical appraisal, Evidence based medicine, Models, Prediction, Prognosis, Regression",
author = "Randolph, {Adrienne G.} and Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and Calvin, {James E.} and Gordon Doig and Scott Richardson and Cook, {Deborah J.}",
year = "1998",
month = "10",
day = "13",
doi = "10.1097/00003246-199809000-00036",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "1603--1612",
journal = "Critical Care Medicine",
issn = "0090-3493",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Understanding articles describing clinical prediction tools

AU - Randolph, Adrienne G.

AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.

AU - Calvin, James E.

AU - Doig, Gordon

AU - Richardson, Scott

AU - Cook, Deborah J.

PY - 1998/10/13

Y1 - 1998/10/13

N2 - Objectives: Clinical prediction rules and models are developed by applying statistical techniques to find combinations of predictors that categorize a heterogeneous group of patients into subgroups of risk. Our goal is to teach clinicians how to evaluate the validity, results, and applicability of articles describing clinical prediction tools. Clinical Example: An article describing a rule to predict the need for intensive care unit care admission in patients presenting to the emergency room with chest pain. Recommendations: Valid clinical prediction tools are developed by completely following up a representative group of patients, by evaluating all potential predictors and testing the independent contribution of each predictor variable, and by ensuring that the outcomes were independent of the predictors. To evaluate the results of an article describing a clinical prediction tool, clinicians need to know what the prediction tool is, how well it categorizes patients into different levels of risk, and what the confidence intervals are around the risk estimates. Valid prediction tools are not applicable in every patient population. Before patient care application, the clinician should ensure that the tool maintains its prediction power in a new sample of patients, that the patients are similar to patients used to test the tool, and that the tool has been shown to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusions: There has been an increase in the development and validation of clinical prediction rules and models. It is important to evaluate the validity and reliability of these prediction tools before application.

AB - Objectives: Clinical prediction rules and models are developed by applying statistical techniques to find combinations of predictors that categorize a heterogeneous group of patients into subgroups of risk. Our goal is to teach clinicians how to evaluate the validity, results, and applicability of articles describing clinical prediction tools. Clinical Example: An article describing a rule to predict the need for intensive care unit care admission in patients presenting to the emergency room with chest pain. Recommendations: Valid clinical prediction tools are developed by completely following up a representative group of patients, by evaluating all potential predictors and testing the independent contribution of each predictor variable, and by ensuring that the outcomes were independent of the predictors. To evaluate the results of an article describing a clinical prediction tool, clinicians need to know what the prediction tool is, how well it categorizes patients into different levels of risk, and what the confidence intervals are around the risk estimates. Valid prediction tools are not applicable in every patient population. Before patient care application, the clinician should ensure that the tool maintains its prediction power in a new sample of patients, that the patients are similar to patients used to test the tool, and that the tool has been shown to improve clinical decision-making. Conclusions: There has been an increase in the development and validation of clinical prediction rules and models. It is important to evaluate the validity and reliability of these prediction tools before application.

KW - Clinical prediction rules

KW - Critical appraisal

KW - Evidence based medicine

KW - Models

KW - Prediction

KW - Prognosis

KW - Regression

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0031684817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0031684817&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00003246-199809000-00036

DO - 10.1097/00003246-199809000-00036

M3 - Article

C2 - 9751601

AN - SCOPUS:0031684817

VL - 26

SP - 1603

EP - 1612

JO - Critical Care Medicine

JF - Critical Care Medicine

SN - 0090-3493

IS - 9

ER -