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...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
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 |