Key result
Neurology prognostic models increasingly predict outcomes but require careful assessment of derivation and validation.
This article reviews the derivation and validation of prognostic models in neurology.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Clinicians should await rigorous external validation before using prognostic models; leaves open standardized frameworks for neurology applications.
An appreciation of prognosis is essential for effective clinical practice, in neurology as in other fields. Predicting risk of a poor outcome in individuals, or at least in well-defined groups of individuals, is necessary to properly inform patients about what the future holds for them, and the likely benefits of treatment. Despite the various pitfalls in the derivation and validation of prognostic models (or scores), there are an increasing number of useful models available to help patients and clinicians in routine neurology practice. This article considers how such models are best derived, and how their reliability should be assessed, drawing on examples from various different neurological disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lyons et al. (1971) conducted a review in Neurological disorders. Prognostic models was evaluated. Prognostic models in neurology are increasingly available to help predict patient outcomes and guide treatment, though their derivation and validation require careful assessment.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: