ArticleBMJ open2024
How accurate is clinical prognostication by oncologists during routine practice in a general hospital and can it be improved by a specific prognosis training programme: a prospective interventional study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOncologists need competence in clinical prognostication to deliver appropriate care to patients with cancer. Most studies on prognostication have been restricted to patients in palliative care settings. This paper investigates (1) the prognostic accuracy of physicians regarding a broad cohort of patients with cancer with a median life expectancy of >2 years and (2) whether a prognosis training can improve prognostication.
designProspective single-centre study comprising 3 phases, each lasting 1 month.
settingLarge teaching hospital, department of oncology and haematology, Germany.
participants18 physicians with a professional experience from entry level to 34 years. 736 patients with oncological and malignant haematological diseases.
interventionsBaseline prognostication abilities were recorded during an 'untrained' phase 1. As an intervention, a specific prognosis-training programme was implemented prior to phases 2 and 3. In phase 3, physicians had to provide additional estimates with the inclusion of electronic prognostic tools. OUTCOME MEASURES: Prognostic estimates (PE) were collected using 'standard' surprise question (SQ), 'probabilistic' SQ (both for short-term prognostication up to 6 months) and clinician prediction of survival (CPS) (for long-term prognostication). Estimated prognoses were compared with observed survival. Phase 1 was compared with phases 2 and 3.
resultsWe included 2427 PE for SQ, 1506 for CPS and 800 for probabilistic SQ. Median OS was 2.5 years. SQ accuracy improved significantly (p<0.001) from 72.6% in phase 1 to 84.3% in phase 3. Probabilistic SQ in phase 3 showed 83.1% accuracy. CPS accuracy was 25.9% and could not be significantly improved. (Electronic) prognostic tools-used alone-performed significantly worse (p<0.0005) than physicians and-used by the clinicians-did not improve their performance.
conclusionA specific prognosis-training programme could improve short-term and intermediate-term prognostication. Improvement of long-term prognostication was not possible. Inexperienced residents as well as experienced oncologists benefited from training.
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.