ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Angiographic results of surgical or endovascular treatment of intracranial aneurysms: a systematic review and inter-observer reliability study.Neuroradiology · 2021Pooled it
- Validation of a Clinical Decision-Support Algorithm for Chronic Wound Classification and Treatment: An Expert Consensus.International wound journal · 2026Article
- Assessment of collaterals on multiphase CTA in stroke patients with a large vessel occlusion: an interrater and intrarater agreement study.Neuroradiology · 2025Article
- The Management of Persistent Distal Occlusions after Mechanical Thrombectomy and Thrombolysis: An Inter- and Intrarater Agreement Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Noninvasive Angiographic Results of Clipped or Coiled Intracranial Aneurysms: An Inter- and Intraobserver Reliability Study.AJNR. American journal of neuroradiology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.