Cargando…

Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores

AIM: To determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely avai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Aakre, Christopher A, Dziadzko, Mikhail A, Herasevich, Vitaly
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28396846
http://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i1.16
_version_ 1782517684787740672
author Aakre, Christopher A
Dziadzko, Mikhail A
Herasevich, Vitaly
author_facet Aakre, Christopher A
Dziadzko, Mikhail A
Herasevich, Vitaly
author_sort Aakre, Christopher A
collection PubMed
description AIM: To determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely available internet-based services frequently used by clinicians. Scores were categorized based on pertinent specialty and a customized survey was created for each clinician specialty group. Clinicians were asked to rank each score based on importance of automated calculation to their clinical practice in three categories - “not important”, “nice to have”, or “very important”. Surveys were solicited via specialty-group listserv over a 3-mo interval. Respondents must have been practicing physicians with more than 20% clinical time spent in the inpatient setting. Within each specialty, consensus was established for any clinical score with greater than 70% of responses in a single category and a minimum of 10 responses. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of automation importance. RESULTS: Seventy-nine divided by one hundred and forty-four (54.9%) surveys were completed and 72/144 (50%) surveys were completed by eligible respondents. Only the critical care and internal medicine specialties surpassed the 10-respondent threshold (14 respondents each). For internists, 2/110 (1.8%) of scores were “very important” and 73/110 (66.4%) were “nice to have”. For intensivists, no scores were “very important” and 26/76 (34.2%) were “nice to have”. Only the number of medical history (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.26-4.67; P < 0.05) and vital sign (OR = 1.88; 95%CI: 1.03-3.68; P < 0.05) variables for clinical scores used by internists was predictive of desire for automation. CONCLUSION: Few clinical scores were deemed “very important” for automated calculation. Future efforts towards score calculator automation should focus on technically feasible “nice to have” scores.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5366935
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-53669352017-04-10 Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores Aakre, Christopher A Dziadzko, Mikhail A Herasevich, Vitaly World J Methodol Basic Study AIM: To determine clinical scores important for automated calculation in the inpatient setting. METHODS: A modified Delphi methodology was used to create consensus of important clinical scores for inpatient practice. A list of 176 externally validated clinical scores were identified from freely available internet-based services frequently used by clinicians. Scores were categorized based on pertinent specialty and a customized survey was created for each clinician specialty group. Clinicians were asked to rank each score based on importance of automated calculation to their clinical practice in three categories - “not important”, “nice to have”, or “very important”. Surveys were solicited via specialty-group listserv over a 3-mo interval. Respondents must have been practicing physicians with more than 20% clinical time spent in the inpatient setting. Within each specialty, consensus was established for any clinical score with greater than 70% of responses in a single category and a minimum of 10 responses. Logistic regression was performed to determine predictors of automation importance. RESULTS: Seventy-nine divided by one hundred and forty-four (54.9%) surveys were completed and 72/144 (50%) surveys were completed by eligible respondents. Only the critical care and internal medicine specialties surpassed the 10-respondent threshold (14 respondents each). For internists, 2/110 (1.8%) of scores were “very important” and 73/110 (66.4%) were “nice to have”. For intensivists, no scores were “very important” and 26/76 (34.2%) were “nice to have”. Only the number of medical history (OR = 2.34; 95%CI: 1.26-4.67; P < 0.05) and vital sign (OR = 1.88; 95%CI: 1.03-3.68; P < 0.05) variables for clinical scores used by internists was predictive of desire for automation. CONCLUSION: Few clinical scores were deemed “very important” for automated calculation. Future efforts towards score calculator automation should focus on technically feasible “nice to have” scores. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2017-03-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5366935/ /pubmed/28396846 http://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i1.16 Text en ©The Author(s) 2017. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Basic Study
Aakre, Christopher A
Dziadzko, Mikhail A
Herasevich, Vitaly
Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title_full Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title_fullStr Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title_full_unstemmed Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title_short Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
title_sort towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores
topic Basic Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5366935/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28396846
http://dx.doi.org/10.5662/wjm.v7.i1.16
work_keys_str_mv AT aakrechristophera towardsautomatedcalculationofevidencebasedclinicalscores
AT dziadzkomikhaila towardsautomatedcalculationofevidencebasedclinicalscores
AT herasevichvitaly towardsautomatedcalculationofevidencebasedclinicalscores