Literature DB >> 25024245

Developing an international register of clinical prediction rules for use in primary care: a descriptive analysis.

Claire Keogh1, Emma Wallace1, Kirsty K O'Brien1, Rose Galvin1, Susan M Smith1, Cliona Lewis1, Anthony Cummins1, Grainne Cousins2, Borislav D Dimitrov3, Tom Fahey4.   

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.
© 2014 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  clinical decision support systems; clinical prediction rule; decision aid; decision making; primary care; score card

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25024245      PMCID: PMC4096474          DOI: 10.1370/afm.1640

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Fam Med        ISSN: 1544-1709            Impact factor:   5.166


  35 in total

1.  Translating clinical research into clinical practice: impact of using prediction rules to make decisions.

Authors:  Brendan M Reilly; Arthur T Evans
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2006-02-07       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 2.  Validation, updating and impact of clinical prediction rules: a review.

Authors:  D B Toll; K J M Janssen; Y Vergouwe; K G M Moons
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  An updated coronary risk profile. A statement for health professionals.

Authors:  K M Anderson; P W Wilson; P M Odell; W B Kannel
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1991-01       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 4.  Clinical prediction rules. A review and suggested modifications of methodological standards.

Authors:  A Laupacis; N Sekar; I G Stiell
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1997-02-12       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Authors:  A Alvarado
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1986-05       Impact factor: 5.721

6.  Evaluation of computer based clinical decision support system and risk chart for management of hypertension in primary care: randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey; T J Peters; C MacIntosh; D J Sharp
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-03-11

7.  Diagnosing streptococcal sore throat in adults: randomized controlled trial of in-office aids.

Authors:  Graham Worrall; James Hutchinson; Gregory Sherman; Joseph Griffiths
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.275

8.  Outpatient management of patients with low-risk upper-gastrointestinal haemorrhage: multicentre validation and prospective evaluation.

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

9.  Decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Refinement and prospective validation.

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

10.  Multicentre trial to introduce the Ottawa ankle rules for use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Multicentre Ankle Rule Study Group.

Authors:  I Stiell; G Wells; A Laupacis; R Brison; R Verbeek; K Vandemheen; C D Naylor
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-02
View more
  13 in total

1.  Clinical Prediction Rules: Challenges, Barriers, and Promise.

Authors:  Emma Wallace; Michael E Johansen
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2018-09       Impact factor: 5.166

2.  Why evidence still matters to general practice: James Mackenzie Lecture 2019.

Authors:  Tom Fahey
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2020-03-26       Impact factor: 5.386

3.  A simplified approach to the pooled analysis of calibration of clinical prediction rules for systematic reviews of validation studies.

Authors:  Borislav D Dimitrov; Nicola Motterlini; Tom Fahey
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 4.790

4.  A Multistep Maturity Model for the Implementation of Electronic and Computable Diagnostic Clinical Prediction Rules (eCPRs).

Authors:  Derek Corrigan; Ronan McDonnell; Atieh Zarabzadeh; Tom Fahey
Journal:  EGEMS (Wash DC)       Date:  2015-07-07

5.  Why do authors derive new cardiovascular clinical prediction rules in the presence of existing rules? A mixed methods study.

Authors:  Jong-Wook Ban; Emma Wallace; Richard Stevens; Rafael Perera
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-06-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Quantifying patient preferences for symptomatic breast clinic referral: a decision analysis study.

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

7.  Health practitioners' perceptions of adopting clinical prediction rules in the management of musculoskeletal pain: a qualitative study in Australia.

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

Review 8.  Systematic review of the effects of care provided with and without diagnostic clinical prediction rules.

Authors:  Sharon L Sanders; John Rathbone; Katy J L Bell; Paul P Glasziou; Jenny A Doust
Journal:  Diagn Progn Res       Date:  2017-04-26

9.  A systematic review of clinical prediction rules for the diagnosis of chronic heart failure.

Authors:  Joe Gallagher; Darren McCormack; Shuaiwei Zhou; Fiona Ryan; Chris Watson; Kenneth McDonald; Mark T Ledwidge
Journal:  ESC Heart Fail       Date:  2019-03-10

Review 10.  Impact analysis studies of clinical prediction rules relevant to primary care: a systematic review.

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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.