SynthesisBMJ health & care informatics2024
Promising algorithms to perilous applications: a systematic review of risk stratification tools for predicting healthcare utilisation.
Synthesis in BMJ health & care informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- An Evaluation of Clinician and Informatician Perspectives on Medication Harm Risk Prediction Tools for Use in a Tertiary Hospital Setting.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Modeling and forecasting neonatal mortality in Ethiopia: a comparative study using statistical, machine learning, and deep learning approaches.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026Article
- What are we missing? Reflections on the 'problem' of missed appointments in the UK.NIHR open research · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond techno-optimism: four critical limitations in the UK's AI policy for health care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025Article
- Integrating a risk prediction score in a clinical decision support to identify patients with health-related social needs in the emergency department.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- Can an accurate model be bad?Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
- Data's big three: how learning health systems, artificial intelligence and predictive analytics are transforming healthcare.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Population health management fit lifecycles in analytics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- IAPN: a simple framework for evaluating whether a population-based risk stratification tool will be cost-effective before implementation.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2024Article
- The FHJ debate: Will artificial intelligence replace clinical decision making within our lifetimes?Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Two paths for health AI governance: paternalism or democracy.Future healthcare journal · 2024Article
- Stratification tools for assessing older adults with multimorbidity in an integrated care context: A scoping review.Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidityReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRisk stratification tools that predict healthcare utilisation are extensively integrated into primary care systems worldwide, forming a key component of anticipatory care pathways, where high-risk individuals are targeted by preventative interventions. Existing work broadly focuses on comparing model performance in retrospective cohorts with little attention paid to efficacy in reducing morbidity when deployed in different global contexts. We review the evidence supporting the use of such tools in real-world settings, from retrospective dataset performance to pathway evaluation.
methodsA systematic search was undertaken to identify studies reporting the development, validation and deployment of models that predict healthcare utilisation in unselected primary care cohorts, comparable to their current real-world application.
resultsAmong 3897 articles screened, 51 studies were identified evaluating 28 risk prediction models. Half underwent external validation yet only two were validated internationally. No association between validation context and model discrimination was observed. The majority of real-world evaluation studies reported no change, or indeed significant increases, in healthcare utilisation within targeted groups, with only one-third of reports demonstrating some benefit. DISCUSSION: While model discrimination appears satisfactorily robust to application context there is little evidence to suggest that accurate identification of high-risk individuals can be reliably translated to improvements in service delivery or morbidity.
conclusionsThe evidence does not support further integration of care pathways with costly population-level interventions based on risk prediction in unselected primary care cohorts. There is an urgent need to independently appraise the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of risk prediction systems that are already widely deployed within primary care.
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.