ArticleAdvances and technical standards in neurosurgery2023
Evolution of Making Clinical Predictions in Neurosurgery.
Article in Advances and technical standards in neurosurgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prediction of clinical outcomes is an essential task for every physician. Physicians may base their clinical prediction of an individual patient on their intuition and on scientific material such as studies presenting population risks and studies reporting on risk factors (prognostic factors). A relatively new and more informative approach for making clinical predictions relies on the use of statistical models that simultaneously consider multiple predictors that provide an estimate of the patient's absolute risk of an outcome. There is a growing body of literature in the neurosurgical field reporting on clinical prediction models. These tools have high potential in supporting (not replacing) neurosurgeons with their prediction of a patient's outcome. If used sensibly, these tools pave the way for more informed decision-making with or for individual patients. Patients and their significant others want to know their risk of the anticipated outcome, how it is derived, and the uncertainty associated with it. Learning from these prediction models and communicating the output to others has become an increasingly important skill neurosurgeons have to master. This article describes the evolution of making clinical predictions in neurosurgery, synopsizes key phases for the generation of a useful clinical prediction model, and addresses some considerations when deploying and communicating the results of a prediction model. The paper is illustrated with multiple examples from the neurosurgical literature, including predicting arachnoid cyst rupture, predicting rebleeding in patients suffering from aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage, and predicting survival in glioblastoma patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37318572What 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.