Claire Keogh1, Emma Wallace1, Kirsty K O'Brien1, Rose Galvin1, Susan M Smith1, Cliona Lewis1, Anthony Cummins1, Grainne Cousins2, Borislav D Dimitrov3, Tom Fahey4. 1. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 2. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Department of Pharmacy, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. 3. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland Academic Unit of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom. 4. HRB Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland tomfahey@rcsi.ie.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We describe the methodology used to create a register of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care. We also summarize the rules included in the register according to various characteristics. METHODS: To identify relevant articles, we searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed) for the years 1980 to 2009 and supplemented the results with searches of secondary sources (books on clinical prediction rules) and personal resources (eg, experts in the field). The rules described in relevant articles were classified according to their clinical domain, the stage of development, and the clinical setting in which they were studied. RESULTS: Our search identified clinical prediction rules reported between 1965 and 2009. The largest share of rules (37.2%) were retrieved from PubMed. The number of published rules increased substantially over the study decades. We included 745 articles in the register; many contained more than 1 clinical prediction rule study (eg, both a derivation study and a validation study), resulting in 989 individual studies. In all, 434 unique rules had gone through derivation; however, only 54.8% had been validated and merely 2.8% had undergone analysis of their impact on either the process or outcome of clinical care. The rules most commonly pertained to cardiovascular disease, respiratory, and musculoskeletal conditions. They had most often been studied in the primary care or emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical prediction rules have been derived, but only about half have been validated and few have been assessed for clinical impact. This lack of thorough evaluation for many rules makes it difficult to retrieve and identify those that are ready for use at the point of patient care. We plan to develop an international web-based register of clinical prediction rules and computer-based clinical decision support systems.
PURPOSE: We describe the methodology used to create a register of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care. We also summarize the rules included in the register according to various characteristics. METHODS: To identify relevant articles, we searched the MEDLINE database (PubMed) for the years 1980 to 2009 and supplemented the results with searches of secondary sources (books on clinical prediction rules) and personal resources (eg, experts in the field). The rules described in relevant articles were classified according to their clinical domain, the stage of development, and the clinical setting in which they were studied. RESULTS: Our search identified clinical prediction rules reported between 1965 and 2009. The largest share of rules (37.2%) were retrieved from PubMed. The number of published rules increased substantially over the study decades. We included 745 articles in the register; many contained more than 1 clinical prediction rule study (eg, both a derivation study and a validation study), resulting in 989 individual studies. In all, 434 unique rules had gone through derivation; however, only 54.8% had been validated and merely 2.8% had undergone analysis of their impact on either the process or outcome of clinical care. The rules most commonly pertained to cardiovascular disease, respiratory, and musculoskeletal conditions. They had most often been studied in the primary care or emergency department settings. CONCLUSIONS: Many clinical prediction rules have been derived, but only about half have been validated and few have been assessed for clinical impact. This lack of thorough evaluation for many rules makes it difficult to retrieve and identify those that are ready for use at the point of patient care. We plan to develop an international web-based register of clinical prediction rules and computer-based clinical decision support systems.
Authors: A J Stanley; D Ashley; H R Dalton; C Mowat; D R Gaya; E Thompson; U Warshow; M Groome; A Cahill; G Benson; O Blatchford; W Murray Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-12-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: I G Stiell; G H Greenberg; R D McKnight; R C Nair; I McDowell; M Reardon; J P Stewart; J Maloney Journal: JAMA Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Aisling Quinlan; Kirsty K O'Brien; Rose Galvin; Colin Hardy; Ronan McDonnell; Doireann Joyce; Ronald D McDowell; Emma Aherne; Claire Keogh; Katriona O'Sullivan; Tom Fahey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joan Kelly; Michele Sterling; Trudy Rebbeck; Aila Nica Bandong; Andrew Leaver; Martin Mackey; Carrie Ritchie Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joe Gallagher; Darren McCormack; Shuaiwei Zhou; Fiona Ryan; Chris Watson; Kenneth McDonald; Mark T Ledwidge Journal: ESC Heart Fail Date: 2019-03-10
Authors: Emma Wallace; Maike J M Uijen; Barbara Clyne; Atieh Zarabzadeh; Claire Keogh; Rose Galvin; Susan M Smith; Tom Fahey Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2016-03-15 Impact factor: 2.692