Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 217.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 World+J+Methodol 2017 ; 7 (1): 16-24 Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Towards automated calculation of evidence-based clinical scores #MMPMID28396846
Aakre CA; Dziadzko MA; Herasevich V
World J Methodol 2017[Mar]; 7 (1): 16-24 PMID28396846show ga
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.
free
free
free
World+J+Methodol 2017 ; 7 (1): 16-24
