Why the study?
Does the APACHE-II score predict outcome better than critical care physicians in patients in a medical intensive care unit?
Does the APACHE-II score predict outcome better than critical care physicians in patients in a medical intensive care unit?
While physicians are better at predicting ICU outcomes, the APACHE-II score remains a useful supportive tool, especially for patients with a predicted mortality risk of less than 30%.
Physician judgment may outperform APACHE-II for ICU mortality prediction; leaves open whether combined use improves decisions pending validation.
Quantitative methods to enhance clinical judgment would be of tremendous benefit to physicians caring for the critically ill. The ability of physicians to predict outcome is a logical standard on which to base the prospective evaluation of a prediction rule intended for this clinical use. The APACHE (acute physiology and chronic health evaluation)-II score was compared with critical care physicians' prediction of outcome for a group of patients in a medical intensive care unit. Physicians were significantly better in predicting outcome in the critically ill. However, the APACHE-II score was still a good predictor of outcome in the intensive care unit and, according to analysis using Bayes' theorem, might still be a useful test to support physicians' judgment, especially in patients with a predicted mortality risk of less than 30%.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anna Brannen (1989) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: