Observational studyPloS one2022
The accuracy of clinician predictions of survival in the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2): A prospective observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Palliative prognostic scores for survival prediction of cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Pooled it
- Prognostic evaluation in patients with advanced cancer in the last months of life: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline.ESMO open · 2023Guideline
- Accuracy of clinician perceptions in estimating patient survival in general medicine.Internal medicine journal · 2026Article
- Prognostic factors and development of the practical prediction score for 7-day mortality of palliative patients in the emergency department.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparing imputation approaches to handle systematically missing inputs in risk calculators.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Factors related to accurate clinicians' prediction of survival: an international multicenter study in East Asia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Clinicians' Prediction of Survival Is Most Useful for Palliative Care Referral.Palliative medicine reports · 2024Article
- Exploring the Potential Use of Wearable Devices as a Prognostic Tool among Patients in Hospice Care.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Observational
- Temporal, Probabilistic and Surprise Question Approaches of Clinician Predicted Survival in Advanced Hepatopancreaticobiliary Cancers: A Prospective Cohort Study.Indian journal of palliative careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrognostic information is important for patients with cancer, their families, and clinicians. In practice, survival predictions are made by clinicians based on their experience, judgement, and intuition. Previous studies have reported that clinicians' survival predictions are often inaccurate. This study reports a secondary analysis of data from the Prognosis in Palliative care Study II (PiPS2) to assess the accuracy of survival estimates made by doctors and nurses. METHODS AND
findingsAdult patients (n = 1833) with incurable, locally advanced or metastatic cancer, recently referred to palliative care services (community teams, hospital teams, and inpatient palliative care units) were recruited. Doctors (n = 431) and nurses (n = 777) provided independent prognostic predictions and an agreed multi-professional prediction for each patient. Clinicians provided prognostic estimates in several formats including predictions about length of survival and probability of surviving to certain time points. There was a minimum follow up of three months or until death (whichever was sooner; maximum follow-up 783 days). Agreed multi-professional predictions about whether patients would survive for days, weeks or months+ were accurate on 61.9% of occasions. The positive predictive value of clinicians' predictions about imminent death (within one week) was 77% for doctors and 79% for nurses. The sensitivity of these predictions was low (37% and 35% respectively). Specific predictions about how many weeks patients would survive were not very accurate but showed good discrimination (patients estimated to survive for shorted periods had worse outcomes). The accuracy of clinicians' probabilistic predictions (assessed using Brier's scores) was consistently better than chance, improved with proximity to death and showed good discrimination between groups of patients with different survival outcomes.
conclusionsUsing a variety of different approaches, this study found that clinicians predictions of survival show good discrimination and accuracy, regardless of whether the predictions are about how long or how likely patients are to survive. Accuracy improves with proximity to death. Although the positive predictive value of estimates of imminent death are relatively high, the sensitivity of such predictions is relatively low. Despite limitations, the clinical prediction of survival should remain the benchmark against which any innovations in prognostication are judged. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN13688211. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13688211.
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.