Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32842953›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions.

Robert Fahed, Tim E Darsaut, Behzad Farzin, Miguel Chagnon, Jean Raymond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Robert FahedDivision of Neurology, The Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Tim E DarsautMackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Department of Surgery, Division of Neurosurgery, University of Alberta Hospital, 8440 - 112 Street, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2B7, Canada.
Behzad FarzinDepartment of Radiology, Service of Interventional Neuroradiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal - CHUM, 1000 Saint-Denis street, room D03-5462B, Montreal, QC, H2X 0C1, Canada.
Miguel ChagnonDepartment of Mathematics and Statistic, Pavillion André-Aisenstadt, Université de Montréal, PO Box 6218, succursale Centre-ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3J7, Canada.
Jean RaymondDepartment of Radiology, Service of Interventional Neuroradiology, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal - CHUM, 1000 Saint-Denis street, room D03-5462B, Montreal, QC, H2X 0C1, Canada. jean.raymond@Umontreal.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-1978-4274

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical uncertainty and equipoise are vague notions that play important roles in contemporary problems of medical care and research, including the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Our goal was to show how the reliability study methods normally used to assess diagnostic tests can be applied to particular management decisions to measure the degree of uncertainty and equipoise regarding the use of rival management options.

methodsWe first use thrombectomy in acute stroke as an illustrative example of the method we propose. We then review, item by item, how the various design elements of diagnostic reliability studies can be modified in order to measure clinical uncertainty.

resultsThe thrombectomy example shows sufficient disagreement and uncertainty to warrant the conduct of additional randomized trials. The general method we propose is that a sufficient number of diverse individual cases sharing a similar clinical problem and covering a wide spectrum of clinical presentations be assembled into a portfolio that is submitted to a variety of clinicians who routinely manage patients with the clinical problem. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are asked to independently choose one of the predefined management options, which are selected from those that would be compared within a randomized trial that would address the clinical dilemma. Intra-rater agreement can be assessed at a later time with a second evaluation. Various professional judgments concerning individual patients can then be compared and analyzed using kappa statistics or similar methods. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by providing examples or by translating the results into clinically meaningful summary sentences.

conclusionsMeasuring the uncertainty regarding management options for clinical problems may reveal substantial disagreement, provide an empirical foundation for the notion of equipoise, and inform or facilitate the design/conduct of clinical trials to address the clinical dilemma.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingStrokeHumansPragmatic Clinical Trials as TopicRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignResearch PersonnelUncertaintyAgreementClinical decision-makingEquipoiseKappaMethodologyRandomized trialsReliabilityUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID32842953
PMCPMC7448326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.