Assessing the likelihood of an important clinical outcome: New insights from a comparison of clinical and actuarial judgment

Medical Decision Making

Volumn 25, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 262-282

  Rakow, Tim ^a   Vincent, Charles ^b   Bull, Kate ^c   Harvey, Nigel ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ESSEX   (United Kingdom)

^b IMPERIAL COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^c HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Actuarial prediction; Clinical judgment; Logistic regression; Probability estimation; Probability score; Risk stratification

Indexed keywords

ACCREDITATION; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; HUMAN; LOGISTIC REGRESSION ANALYSIS; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PATIENT SELECTION; PREDICTION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROBABILITY; RELIABILITY; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTOR; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; SURGICAL MORTALITY;

ACTUARIAL ANALYSIS; AGE FACTORS; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; FONTAN PROCEDURE; HEART DEFECTS, CONGENITAL; HEART VENTRICLES; HOSPITAL MORTALITY; HUMANS; INFANT; INFANT, NEWBORN; JUDGMENT; LOGISTIC MODELS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PATIENT SELECTION; PROGNOSIS; PROPORTIONAL HAZARDS MODELS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK FACTORS; SURVIVAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 18844449659     PISSN: 0272989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X05276849     Document Type: Article

References (54)

1. Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? Br Med J. 1999;318:318-22.
2. Poses RM, Cebul RD, Collins M, Fager SS. The importance of disease prevalence in transporting clinical prediction rules: the case of streptococcal pharyngitis. Ann Intern Med. 1986;105:586-91.
3. Wigton RS, Connor JL, Centor RM. Transportability of a decision rule for the diagnosis of a streptococcal pharyngitis. Arch Intern Med. 1986;146:81-3.
4. Meehl PE. Clinical versus Statistical Prediction: A Theoretical Analysis and a Review of the Evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 1954.
5. Dawes RM, Faust D, Meehl PE. Clinical versus actuarial judgment. Science. 1989;243:1668-74.
6. Grove WM, Meehl PE. Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction procedures: the clinical-statistical controversy. Psychol Publ Pol Law. 1996;2:293-323.
7. Hastie R, Dawes RM. Rational Choice in an Uncertain World: The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks (CA): Sage; 2001.
8. Beach BH. Expert judgment about uncertainty: Bayesian decision making in realistic settings. Org Behav Human Perf. 1975;14:10-59.
9. Kleinmuntz B. Why we still use our heads instead of formulas: toward an integrative approach. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(3):296-310.
10. Ebbeson E, Konecni V. Decision making and information integration in the courts: the setting of bail. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1975;32:805-21.
11. Slovic P. Analyzing the expert judge: a descriptive study of stockbroker's decision processes. J Appl Psychol. 1969;53:255-63.
12. Einhorn H. Expert judgement: some necessary conditions and an example. J Appl Psychol. 1974;59:562-71.
13. Harries C, Evans JSBT, Dennis I. Measuring doctors' self-insight into their treatment decisions. Appl Cog Psychol. 2000;14:455-77.
14. Gaeth GJ, Shanteau J. Reducing the relevance of irrelevant information on experienced decision makers. Org Behav Human Decis Proc. 1984;33:263-82.
15. Gigerenzer G, Todd PM, eds. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press; 1999.
16. Patel VL, Groen GJ. The general and specific nature of medical expertise: a critical look. In: Ericsson KA, Smith J, eds. Toward a General Theory of Expertise. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1991;93-125.
17. Abernathy CM, Hamm RM. Surgical Intuition: What It Is and How to Get It. Philadelphia: Hanley & Belfus; 1995.
18. Klein G. Sources of Power: How People Make Decisions. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1999.
19. Sommers SC, Johnson JM. Congenital tricuspid atresia. Am Heart J. 1951;41:131-43.
20. Dick M, Fyler DC, Nadas AS. Tricuspid atresia: clinical course in 101 patients. Am J Cardiol. 1975;36:327-37.
21. Knott-Craig CJ, Danielson GK, Schakk HV, Puga FJ, Weaver AL, Driscoll DD. The modified Fontan operation: an analysis of risk factors for early postoperative death or takedown in 702 consecutive patients from one institution. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;109(6): 1237-43.
22. Gentles TL, Mayer JE, Gavreau K, Newburger JW, Lock JE, Kupferschmid JP, et al. Fontan operation in five hundred consecutive patients: factors influencing early and late outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1997;114(3):376-91.
23. Fontan F, Kirklin JW, Fernandez G, Costa F, Naftel DC, Tritto F, et al. Outcome after a "perfect" Fontan operation. Circulation. 1990;81(5):1520-36.
24. Caspi J, Coles JG, Rabinovich M, Cohen D, Trusler GA, Williams WG, et al. Morphological findings contributing to a failed Fontan procedure. Twelve-year experience. Circulation. 1990;82(5 Suppl): 177-82.
25. Sharma R, Iyer KS, Airan B, Saha K, Das B, Bhan A, et al. Univentricular repair. Early and midterm results. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;110(6):1692-700.
26. Pearl JM, Laks H, Drinkwater DC, Capouya ER, George BL, Williams RG. Modified Fontan procedure in patients less than 4 years of age. Circulation. 1992;86(5 Suppl)II:100-5.
27. Kirklin JK, Blackstone EH, Kirklin JW, Pacifico AD, Bargeron LM Jr. The Fontan operation: ventricular hypertrophy, age, and date of operation as risk factors. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1986;92:1049-64.
28. Norusis MJ. SPSS Advanced Statistics 6.1. Chicago: SPSS; 1994.
29. Yates JF. External correspondence: decompositions of the mean probability score. Org Behav Human Perf. 1982;30:132-56.
30. Yates JF. Judgment and Decision Making. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 1990.
31. Yates JF. Subjective probability accuracy analysis. In: Wright G, Ayton P, eds. Subjective Probability. Chichester (UK): Wiley; 1994. p 381-410.
32. Brier GW. Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of a probability. Monthly Weather Rev. 1950;78(1):1-3.
33. Arkes HR, Dawson NV, Speroff T, Harrell FE, Alzola C, Phillips R, et al. The covariance decomposition of the probability score and its use in evaluating prognostic estimates. Med Decis Making. 1995;15:120-31.
34. Redelmeier DA, Bloch DA, Hickam DH. Assessing predictive accuracy: how to compare Brier scores. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1141-6.
35. Zhou X-H, Obuchowski NA, McClish DK. Statistical Methods in Diagnostic Medicine. New York: John Wiley; 2002.
36. Slovic P, Lichtenstein S. Comparison of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgement. Org Behav Human Perf. 1971;6:649-744.
37. Hammond KR. Probabilistic functionalism and the clinical method. Psychol Rev. 1955;62:255-62.
38. Cooksey R. Judgment Analysis: Theory, Methods and Applications. London: Academic Press; 1996.
39. Hill GW. Group versus individual performance: are N + 1 heads better than one? Psychol Bull. 1982;91(3):517-39.
40. McClish DK, Powell SH. How well can physicians estimate mortality in a medical intensive care unit? Med Decis Making. 1989;9:125-32.
41. Blattberg RC, Hoch SJ. Database models and managerial intuition: 50% model + 50% manager. Manage Sci. 1990;36:887-99.
42. Murphy AH, Brown BG. A comparative evaluation of objective and subjective weather forecasts in the United States. J Forecast. 1984;3:369-93.
43. Lee JW, Yates JF. How quality judgement changes as the number of cues increases: an analytical framework and review. Psychol Bull. 1992;112(2):363-77.
44. Koehler JJ. The base rate fallacy reconsidered: descriptive, normative and methodological challenges. Behav Brain Sci. 1996;19:1-53.
45. Harvey N. Why are judgments less consistent in less predictable task situations? Org Behav Human Decis Proc. 1995;63:247-63.
46. Brehmer B. Response consistency in probabilistic inference tasks. Org Behav Human Decis Proc. 1978;22:103-15.
47. Dawes RM, Corrigan B. Linear models in decision making. Psychol Bull. 1974;81:95-106.
48. Nisbett RE, Zukier H, Lemley RE. The dilution effect: nondiagnostic information weakens the implications of diagnostic information. Cog Psychol. 1981;13:248-77.
49. Zukier H. The dilution effect: The role of the correlation and the dispersion of the predictor variables in the use of nondiagnostic information. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1982;43(6):1163-74.
50. Tetlock PE, Boettger R. Accountability: a social magnifier of the dilution effect. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;57(3):388-98.
51. Tetlock PE, Lerner JS, Boettger R. The dilution effect: judgmental bias, conversational convention, or a bit of both? Eur J Soc Psychol. 1996;26(6):915-34.
52. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124-31.
53. Yates JF. Decision Management: How to Assure Better Decisions in Your Company. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.
54. Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJC, Harrell FE, Habbema JDF. Prognostic modeling with logistic regression analysis: in search of a sensible strategy with small data sets. Med Decis Making. 2001;21:45-56.