Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28528347›Full record

ArticleJAMA2017

Discriminative Accuracy of Physician and Nurse Predictions for Survival and Functional Outcomes 6 Months After an ICU Admission.

Michael E Detsky, Michael O Harhay, Dominique F Bayard, Aaron M Delman, Anna E Buehler, Saida A Kent, Isabella V Ciuffetelli, Elizabeth Cooney, Nicole B Gabler, Sarah J Ratcliffe and 2 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06452797 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Prognostic Estimates Among ICU Clinicians Caring for Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation

TypeinterventionalSponsorRush University Medical CenterRan2024 to 2027Enrolled238ConditionsMechanical VentilationArmsProVent-14 score
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

87 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Michael E DetskyPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia2Sinai Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada3Depatment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada4Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael O HarhayPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia5Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia6Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Dominique F BayardPulmonary and Critical Care of Atlanta, Atlanta, Georgia.
Aaron M DelmanWayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan.
Anna E BuehlerUniversity of California, San Diego School of Medicine.
Saida A KentUniversity of Kentucky College of Medicine, Lexington.
Isabella V CiuffetelliPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Elizabeth CooneyPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia6Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Nicole B GablerPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Sarah J RatcliffeDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Mark E MikkelsenDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia11Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia.
Scott D HalpernPalliative and Advanced Illness Research (PAIR) Center, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia5Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia6Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia11Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia12Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Activities of Daily LivingCognition DisordersIntensive Care UnitsMedical Staff, HospitalNursing Staff, HospitalPrognosisAgedCritical IllnessFemaleHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, StatisticalProspective StudiesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID28528347
PMCPMC5710341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.