Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39318684›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Digital health2024

The use of imputation in clinical decision support systems: a cardiovascular risk management pilot vignette study among clinicians.

Saskia Haitjema, Steven W J Nijman, Inge Verkouter, John J L Jacobs, Folkert W Asselbergs, Karel G M Moons, Ines Beekers, Thomas P A Debray, Michiel L Bots

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Digital health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Saskia HaitjemaCentral Diagnostic Laboratory, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5465-4868
Steven W J NijmanJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Inge VerkouterDepartment Clinical Care & Research, Ortec B.V., Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
John J L JacobsDepartment Clinical Care & Research, Ortec B.V., Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Folkert W AsselbergsDepartment of Cardiology, Amsterdam Cardiovascular Sciences, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Karel G M MoonsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ines BeekersDepartment Clinical Care & Research, Ortec B.V., Zoetermeer, The Netherlands.
Thomas P A DebrayJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Michiel L BotsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: A major challenge of the use of prediction models in clinical care is missing data. Real-time imputation may alleviate this. However, to what extent clinicians accept this solution remains unknown. We aimed to assess acceptance of real-time imputation for missing patient data in a clinical decision support system (CDSS) including 10-year cardiovascular absolute risk for the individual patient. Methods and results: We performed a vignette study extending an existing CDSS with the real-time imputation method joint modelling imputation (JMI). We included 17 clinicians to use the CDSS with three different vignettes, describing potential use cases (missing data, no risk estimate; imputed values, risk estimate based on imputed data; complete information). In each vignette, missing data were introduced to mimic a situation as could occur in clinical practice. Acceptance of end-users was assessed on three different axes: clinical realism, comfortableness, and added clinical value. Overall, the imputed predictor values were found to be clinically reasonable and according to the expectations. However, for binary variables, use of a probability scale to express uncertainty was deemed inconvenient. The perceived comfortableness with imputed risk prediction was low, and confidence intervals were deemed too wide for reliable decision-making. The clinicians acknowledged added value for using JMI in clinical practice when used for educational, research, or informative purposes. Conclusion: Handling missing data in CDSS via JMI is useful, but more accurate imputations are needed to generate comfort in clinicians for use in routine care. Only then can CDSS create clinical value by improving decision-making.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular riskCDSSImputationPrediction modelsU-Prevent

Identifiers

PMID39318684
PMCPMC11417486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.