OBJECTIVE: We compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more than 12,000 stroke patients admitted to 12 stroke centers. The primary outcome was prediction of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≥3) at discharge within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of observed outcomes. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and death or institutionalization at discharge. RESULTS: Clinicians made 1,661 predictions with overall accuracy of 16.9% for death or disability at discharge, 46.9% for 30-day mortality, and 33.1% for death or institutionalization at discharge. In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95% CI of observed outcomes. Nearly half (n = 53 of 111; 48%) of participants were unable to accurately predict the probability of the primary outcome in any of the 5 rated cases. Less than 1% (n = 1) provided accurate predictions in 4 of the 5 cases and none accurately predicted all 5 case outcomes. In multivariable analyses, the presence of patient characteristics associated with poor outcomes (mRS ≥3 or death) in previous studies (older age, high NIH Stroke Scale score, and nonlacunar subtype) were associated with more accurate clinician predictions of death at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% CI 1.57-3.67) and with a trend for more accurate predictions of death or disability at discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.99-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians with expertise in stroke performed poorly compared to a validated tool in predicting the outcomes of patients with an acute ischemic stroke. Use of the risk stroke outcome tool may be superior for decision-making following an acute ischemic stroke.
OBJECTIVE: We compared the accuracy of clinicians and a risk score (iScore) to predict observed outcomes following an acute ischemic stroke. METHODS: The JURaSSiC (Clinician JUdgment vs Risk Score to predict Stroke outComes) study assigned 111 clinicians with expertise in acute stroke care to predict the probability of outcomes of 5 ischemic stroke case scenarios. Cases (n = 1,415) were selected as being representative of the 10 most common clinical presentations from a pool of more than 12,000 strokepatients admitted to 12 stroke centers. The primary outcome was prediction of death or disability (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] ≥3) at discharge within the 95% confidence interval (CI) of observed outcomes. Secondary outcomes included 30-day mortality and death or institutionalization at discharge. RESULTS: Clinicians made 1,661 predictions with overall accuracy of 16.9% for death or disability at discharge, 46.9% for 30-day mortality, and 33.1% for death or institutionalization at discharge. In contrast, 90% of the iScore-based estimates were within the 95% CI of observed outcomes. Nearly half (n = 53 of 111; 48%) of participants were unable to accurately predict the probability of the primary outcome in any of the 5 rated cases. Less than 1% (n = 1) provided accurate predictions in 4 of the 5 cases and none accurately predicted all 5 case outcomes. In multivariable analyses, the presence of patient characteristics associated with poor outcomes (mRS ≥3 or death) in previous studies (older age, high NIH Stroke Scale score, and nonlacunar subtype) were associated with more accurate clinician predictions of death at 30 days (odds ratio [OR] 2.40, 95% CI 1.57-3.67) and with a trend for more accurate predictions of death or disability at discharge (OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.99-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians with expertise in stroke performed poorly compared to a validated tool in predicting the outcomes of patients with an acute ischemic stroke. Use of the risk stroke outcome tool may be superior for decision-making following an acute ischemic stroke.
Authors: H P Adams; P H Davis; E C Leira; K C Chang; B H Bendixen; W R Clarke; R F Woolson; M D Hansen Journal: Neurology Date: 1999-07-13 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Franca Dipaola; Giorgio Costantino; Francesca Perego; Marta Borella; Andrea Galli; Giulia Cantoni; Franca Barbic; Francesco Casella; Pier Giorgio Duca; Raffaello Furlan Journal: Am J Emerg Med Date: 2010-01-28 Impact factor: 2.469
Authors: Deborah S Nichols-Larsen; P C Clark; Angelique Zeringue; Arlene Greenspan; Sarah Blanton Journal: Stroke Date: 2005-06-09 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: François Lauzier; Annie Ruest; Deborah Cook; Peter Dodek; Martin Albert; Andrew F Shorr; Andrew Day; Xuran Jiang; Daren Heyland Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2008-03 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: W A Knaus; F E Harrell; J Lynn; L Goldman; R S Phillips; A F Connors; N V Dawson; W J Fulkerson; R M Califf; N Desbiens; P Layde; R K Oye; P E Bellamy; R B Hakim; D P Wagner Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1995-02-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David Y Hwang; Cameron A Dell; Mary J Sparks; Tiffany D Watson; Carl D Langefeld; Mary E Comeau; Jonathan Rosand; Thomas W K Battey; Sebastian Koch; Mario L Perez; Michael L James; Jessica McFarlin; Jennifer L Osborne; Daniel Woo; Steven J Kittner; Kevin N Sheth Journal: Neurology Date: 2015-12-16 Impact factor: 9.910