Structured Clinical Decision Aids Are Seldom Compared With Subjective Physician Judgment, and Are Seldom Superior - 29/08/17
Abstract |
Study objective |
We determine how often studies that evaluate the performance of an aid for decisionmaking, be it a simple laboratory or imaging test or a complex multielement decision instrument, compare the aid's performance to independent, unaided physician judgment.
Methods |
This was a cross-sectional survey of all Original Research and Brief Research Report articles in Annals of Emergency Medicine from 1998 to 2015. We included all articles that evaluated the performance of an aid for decisionmaking in assisting a physician with a decision about testing, treatment, diagnosis, or disposition. Two authors independently characterized the intent and purpose of each aid for decisionmaking, determined whether each study had a comparison to unaided physician judgment within the article or in a separate article, and recorded the result of that comparison.
Results |
One hundred seventy-one (8.3%) of 2,060 research articles studied the performance characteristics of an aid for decisionmaking, 48 of which were formal clinical decision instruments. Forty of the 171 studies retrospectively analyzed existing databases and therefore could not assess physician judgment. Investigators compared the aid for decisionmaking to physician judgment in 11% (15/131) of the prospective studies, including 15% (6/41) of studies that evaluated a formal clinical decision instrument. For 9 articles that had no comparison to physician judgment, we found 6 unique external publications that compared that aid to physician clinical judgment. The decision aid was superior to clinical judgment in 2 of the 21 studies that contained a comparison.
Conclusion |
Physician judgment is infrequently assessed when the performance of an aid for decisionmaking is evaluated, and, when reported, the decision aid seldom outperformed physician judgment.
Le texte complet de cet article est disponible en PDF.Plan
Please see page 339 for the Editor’s Capsule Summary of this article. |
|
Supervising editor: Steven M. Green, MD |
|
Author contributions: DLS conceived the study. All authors participated in the study design, development of study protocol, and data abstraction and analysis. DLS and JWE drafted parts of the article, and all authors participated in the revision process. DLS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole. |
|
All authors attest to meeting the four ICMJE.org authorship criteria: (1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. |
|
Funding and support: By Annals policy, all authors are required to disclose any and all commercial, financial, and other relationships in any way related to the subject of this article as per ICMJE conflict of interest guidelines (see www.icmje.org/). Dr. Schriger was funded in part by an unrestricted grant from the Korein Foundation. Drs. Schriger and Cooper receive monthly stipends for the editorial services to Annals of Emergency Medicine. |
|
Dr. Green was the supervising editor on this article. Dr. Schriger did not participate in the editorial review or decision to publish this article. |
|
Readers: click on the link to go directly to a survey in which you can provide QQYVN5S to Annals on this particular article. |
|
A podcast for this article is available at www.annemergmed.com. |
Vol 70 - N° 3
P. 338 - septembre 2017 Retour au numéroBienvenue sur EM-consulte, la référence des professionnels de santé.
L’accès au texte intégral de cet article nécessite un abonnement.
Déjà abonné à cette revue ?