ArticleJAMA2017
Discriminative Accuracy of Physician and Nurse Predictions for Survival and Functional Outcomes 6 Months After an ICU Admission.
Article in JAMA, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06452797 (Prognostic Estimates Among ICU Clinicians Caring for Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation), which is not on this map. Cited by 87 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Prognostic Estimates Among ICU Clinicians Caring for Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation
Who cites it
87 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Care intervention on psychological outcomes among patients admitted to intensive care unit: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Association of Surrogate Decision-making Interventions for Critically Ill Adults With Patient, Family, and Resource Use Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.JAMA network open · 2019Pooled it
- Predictive Models of Long-Term Outcome in Patients with Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury are Biased Toward Mortality Prediction.Neurocritical care · 2025Trial
- Discussing expected long-term quality of life in the ICU: effect on experiences and outcomes of patients, family, and clinicians-a randomized clinical trial.Intensive care medicine · 2025Trial
- Comparing clinical judgment with the MySurgeryRisk algorithm for preoperative risk assessment: A pilot usability study.Surgery · 2019Trial
- Intensive care decision-making, survival and dying well: a mixed methods study with people who have been intensive care patients.Anaesthesia · 2026Article
- From Sentiment to Signal: Narrative-Physiology Discordance as a Testable Target for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Care.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Admission to intensive care: a matter of shared decision-making in the very old?European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Long-term prognostic impact of clinical frailty scale on acute exacerbation of fibrotic interstitial lung disease: a retrospective cohort study.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2026Article
- [Ethically challenging determination of treatment goals in the intensive care unit: reasons, frequency and possible solutions].Die Anaesthesiologie · 2026Review
- The Challenges of Prognosticating Persistent Critical Illness: A Qualitative Study.CHEST critical care · 2026Article
- Post-Intensive Care Syndrome Awareness and Communication: Surveys of ICU Providers and Patients.Chest · 2026Article
- The effect of shared decision-making for critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Accuracy of Intensivist Prognostications of Deterioration within the Intensive Care Unit and Development of Persistent Critical Illness: A Prospective Cohort Study.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2025Article
- Days spent with healthcare contact by patients with metastatic castrate resistant prostate cancer in the last year of life.The oncologist · 2025Article
- Outcome Predictions at Two Time Points among Surrogates and Physicians of Mechanically Ventilated Patients.Critical care explorations · 2025Article
- Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know Before Their Patient Undergoes Surgery.Journal of palliative medicine · 2025Article
- Unclear Trajectory and Uncertain Benefit: Creating a Lexicon for Clinical Uncertainty in Patients with Critical or Advanced Illness Using a Delphi Consensus Process.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2025Article
- Characterizing the Use of Time-Limited Trials in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure: A Prospective, Single-Center Observational Study.Critical care explorations · 2024Observational
27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
importancePredictions of long-term survival and functional outcomes influence decision making for critically ill patients, yet little is known regarding their accuracy.
objectiveTo determine the discriminative accuracy of intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and nurses in predicting 6-month patient mortality and morbidity, including ambulation, toileting, and cognition. DESIGN, SETTING, AND
participantsProspective cohort study conducted in 5 ICUs in 3 hospitals in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and enrolling patients who spent at least 3 days in the ICU from October 2013 until May 2014 and required mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or both. These patients' attending physicians and bedside nurses were also enrolled. Follow-up was completed in December 2014. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: ICU physicians' and nurses' binary predictions of in-hospital mortality and 6-month outcomes, including mortality, return to original residence, ability to toilet independently, ability to ambulate up 10 stairs independently, and ability to remember most things, think clearly, and solve day-to-day problems (ie, normal cognition). For each outcome, physicians and nurses provided a dichotomous prediction and rated their confidence in that prediction on a 5-point Likert scale. Outcomes were assessed via interviews with surviving patients or their surrogates at 6 months. Discriminative accuracy was measured using positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), C statistics, and other operating characteristics.
resultsAmong 340 patients approached, 303 (89%) consented (median age, 62 years [interquartile range, 53-71]; 57% men; 32% African American); 6-month follow-up was completed for 299 (99%), of whom 169 (57%) were alive. Predictions were made by 47 physicians and 128 nurses. Physicians most accurately predicted 6-month mortality (positive LR, 5.91 [95% CI, 3.74-9.32]; negative LR, 0.41 [95% CI, 0.33-0.52]; C statistic, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.72-0.81]) and least accurately predicted cognition (positive LR, 2.36 [95% CI, 1.36-4.12]; negative LR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.61-0.92]; C statistic, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.54-0.68]). Nurses most accurately predicted in-hospital mortality (positive LR, 4.71 [95% CI, 2.94-7.56]; negative LR, 0.61 [95% CI, 0.49-0.75]; C statistic, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.62-0.74]) and least accurately predicted cognition (positive LR, 1.50 [95% CI, 0.86-2.60]; negative LR, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.73-1.06]; C statistic, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.48-0.62]). Discriminative accuracy was higher when physicians and nurses were confident about their predictions (eg, for physicians' confident predictions of 6-month mortality: positive LR, 33.00 [95% CI, 8.34-130.63]; negative LR, 0.18 [95% CI, 0.09-0.35]; C statistic, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.84-0.96]). Compared with a predictive model including objective clinical variables, a model that also included physician and nurse predictions had significantly higher discriminative accuracy for in-hospital mortality, 6-month mortality, and return to original residence (P < .01 for all). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: ICU physicians' and nurses' discriminative accuracy in predicting 6-month outcomes of critically ill patients varied depending on the outcome being predicted and confidence of the predictors. Further research is needed to better understand how clinicians derive prognostic estimates of long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.