ArticleInternal medicine journal2026
Accuracy of clinician perceptions in estimating patient survival in general medicine.
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients and families often rely on clinicians' predictions of life expectancy to make critical treatment and personal decisions.
aimTo evaluate the accuracy and risk intelligence of clinicians in predicting 1-year survival of general medicine patients after hospital discharge.
methodsDoctors, nurses, allied health professionals and medical students completed 125 questionnaires (70% response rate) distributed in the intensive care unit (ICU) and at a medical grand round at Christchurch Hospital. Survival estimates for four case vignettes were compared to an evidence-based survival score (EBSS) derived from over 120 000 local hospital discharges. Accuracy was defined as estimates within ±10% and ±20% of the EBSS. Confidence was assessed based on the reported range for each estimate.
resultsMedian survival estimates were widely variable and frequently underestimated the EBSS, with 27% and 48% of estimates falling within ±10% and ±20% of the EBSS respectively. Confidence was moderate (median range ±15%), although 52% of estimates were outside ±20% of the EBSS. No significant differences in accuracy were observed between ICU and general medicine respondents, doctors and other healthcare professionals, or senior and junior doctors.
conclusionsClinician estimates of 1-year survival in vignette-based scenarios varied widely and differed from model-based estimates. These findings highlight variability in prognostic estimation and support the potential role of evidence-based tools to complement clinical judgement.
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.