Assessing the Likelihood of an Important Clinical Outcome: New Insights from a Comparison of Clinical and Actuarial Judgment

Tim Rakow, Charles Vincent, Kate Bull and Nigel Harvey
Additional contact information
Tim Rakow: University of Essex, Colchester, UK, timrakow@essex.ac.uk
Charles Vincent: Imperial College, London, UK
Kate Bull: The Hospital for Sick Children, Great Ormond Street, London, UK
Nigel Harvey: University College London, UK

Medical Decision Making, 2005, vol. 25, issue 3, 262-282

Abstract: Purpose . To assess and rank the performance of different methods of predicting the probability of death following a specified surgical procedure. Method . Actuarial estimates of the probability of early mortality for 40 patients were derived from 2 sources: a large published surgical series and a smaller series from the center where surgery was performed. Surgeons and cardiologists also provided probability estimates for these patients. Results . Estimates derived from the published literature were too optimistic and did not differentiate between patients more, or less, likely to die (i.e., failed to discriminate). Doctors’ judgments were unbiased but failed to discriminate. Local actuarial estimates (influenced by only 1 or 2 variables) were unbiased, did discriminate, but exhibited more random variation. Conclusions . The preferred source of estimates depends upon which aspect of accuracy is of greatest importance. Differences in patient selection and error in the identification of risk factors mean that published results will not always appropriately predict surgical risk at other institutions. Risk stratification may be more robust when based on a small set of cross-validated predictors rather than a larger set of predictors that includes some whose reliability has not been confirmed.

Keywords: clinical judgment; actuarial prediction; probability estimation; probability score; risk stratification; logistic regression (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2005
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X05276849 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:25:y:2005:i:3:p:262-282

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276849

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().