Published 7 August 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2899
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2899

Practice

Diagnosis in General Practice

Clinical prediction rules

¹ Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Medical School, Dublin 2, Republic of Ireland

In this pair of articles, Gavin Falk and Tom Fahey (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2899) set out what to consider when using a clinical prediction rule, and Dan Mayer (doi:10.1136/bmj.b2901) shows how one such rule, the Ottawa ankle rules, is applied

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Clinical prediction rules quantify the contribution of symptoms, clinical signs, and available diagnostic tests, and stratify patients according to the probability of having a target disorder.¹ The outcome of interest can be diverse and be anywhere along the diagnostic, prognostic, and therapeutic spectrum. Developing and validating a clinical prediction rule is a form of observational epidemiological research that requires referring to specific methodological standards.^{2 3}

These rules usually go through three distinct stages before they are used in a clinical setting:

• Development of the rule—establishing the independent and combined effect of explanatory variables (or clinical predictors), which can be symptoms, signs, or diagnostic tests
  
• Narrow and broad validation—the explanatory variables or clinical predictors in the derivation set are assessed in separate populations
  
• Impact analysis—a randomised controlled trial measures the impact of applying the rule in a clinical setting in terms of patient outcome, health professionals’ behaviour, resource use, or any combination . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Using probabilistic reasoning

Jenny Doust
BMJ 2009 339: b3823. [Extract] [Full Text]

How to avoid unnecessary interventions

Fiona Godlee
BMJ 2009 339: b3304. [Extract] [Full Text]

Clinical prediction rules

Gavin Falk and Tom Fahey
BMJ 2009 339: b2899. [Extract] [Full Text]

The injured ankle and foot

Dan Mayer
BMJ 2009 339: b2901. [Extract] [Full Text]

Sample sizes of studies on diagnostic accuracy: literature survey

Lucas M Bachmann, Milo A Puhan, Gerben ter Riet, and Patrick M Bossuyt
BMJ 2006 332: 1127-1129. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative

Patrick M Bossuyt, Johannes B Reitsma, David E Bruns, Constantine A Gatsonis, Paul P Glasziou, Les M Irwig, Jeroen G Lijmer, David Moher, Drummond Rennie, and Henrica C W de Vet
BMJ 2003 326: 41-44. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Doust, J. (2009). Using probabilistic reasoning. BMJ 339: b3823-b3823 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more here>> and here>>