Key result
Most clinical prediction rules lack prospective validation, with only ~3% testing clinical impact.
Why the study?
The quality and methodological standards of recently published clinical prediction rules needed review and improvement.
Population
30 clinical prediction rules published in four general medical journals from 1991 through 1994
Comparison
Methodological evaluation of clinical prediction rules
Design
Systematic review
Authors
Loading...
Clinicians should apply most prediction rules cautiously; challenges routine adoption and extends standards for reproducibility and impact testing.
Systematic Review (n=30)
While clinical prediction rules generally comply with some methodological criteria, there is a significant need for better compliance regarding reproducibility and prospective measurement of clinical impact.
Andreas Laupacis (1997) conducted a systematic review in Clinical prediction rules (n=30). Clinical prediction rules was evaluated on Compliance with methodological standards. In a review of 30 clinical prediction rules, although most were clinically sensible (97%), only 3% assessed reproducibility of predictive variables or prospectively measured the effect on clinical use.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: