| Autor: |
Michelle Pistner Nixon, Farhani Momotaz, Claire Smith, Jeffrey S. Smith, Mark Sendak, Christopher Polage, Justin D. Silverman |
| Jazyk: |
angličtina |
| Rok vydání: |
2024 |
| Předmět: |
|
| Zdroj: |
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, Vol 24, Iss 1, Pp 1-8 (2024) |
| Druh dokumentu: |
article |
| ISSN: |
1472-6947 |
| DOI: |
10.1186/s12911-024-02610-3 |
| Popis: |
Abstract Background A central goal of modern evidence-based medicine is the development of simple and easy to use tools that help clinicians integrate quantitative information into medical decision-making. The Bayesian Pre-test/Post-test Probability (BPP) framework is arguably the most well known of such tools and provides a formal approach to quantify diagnostic uncertainty given the result of a medical test or the presence of a clinical sign. Yet, clinical decision-making goes beyond quantifying diagnostic uncertainty and requires that that uncertainty be balanced against the various costs and benefits associated with each possible decision. Despite increasing attention in recent years, simple and flexible approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making have remained elusive. Methods We extend the BPP framework using concepts of Bayesian Decision Theory. By integrating cost, we can expand the BPP framework to allow for clinical decision-making. Results We develop a simple quantitative framework for binary clinical decisions (e.g., action/inaction, treat/no-treat, test/no-test). Let p be the pre-test or post-test probability that a patient has disease. We show that $$r^{*}=(1-p)/p$$ r ∗ = ( 1 - p ) / p represents a critical value called a decision boundary. In terms of the relative cost of under- to over-acting, $$r^{*}$$ r ∗ represents the critical value at which action and inaction are equally optimal. We demonstrate how this decision boundary can be used at the bedside through case studies and as a research tool through a reanalysis of a recent study which found widespread misestimation of pre-test and post-test probabilities among clinicians. Conclusions Our approach is so simple that it should be thought of as a core, yet previously overlooked, part of the BPP framework. Unlike prior approaches to quantitative clinical decision-making, our approach requires little more than a hand-held calculator, is applicable in almost any setting where the BPP framework can be used, and excels in situations where the costs and benefits associated with a particular decision are patient-specific and difficult to quantify. |
| Databáze: |
Directory of Open Access Journals |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
