PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 8118733

Errors and bias in using predictive scoring systems.

Abstract

Scoring systems used to predict clinical outcomes for critically ill patients have been refined in the past decade, yet even the most recently developed systems contain flaws that limit their application. In general, prediction rules are derived by defining an association between a number of clinical variables and a particular outcome in a reference patient population. By systematically examining the qualities of the independent variables and the size and scope of the derivation data set, potential sources of error and bias can be identified. Existing and future predictive systems must be validated on large groups of patients and continuously updated to keep pace with new approaches to the practice of critical care medicine.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J S Cowen, M A Kelley. 1994. Errors and bias in using predictive scoring systems.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8118733/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Assessment of blinding in pharmacotherapy and noninvasive neuromodulation randomized controlled trials for neuropathic pain in adults.

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs), study participants and research personnel are often blinded to minimize biases related to knowing treatment allocation. To determine if blinding was effective, participants may be asked which treatment they believe they received ("treatment guess"). This descriptive review characterized blinding assessment (BA) reporting in pharmacotherapy and neuromodulation neuropathic pain RCTs. Of 288 papers, 36 (12.5%) reported a BA. One paper reported the results of 2 studies, so in total 37 studies with a BA were assessed. Of these, 19 were crossover, 17 parallel, and 1 partial crossover in design. All 37 studies assessed participant blinding, and 10 also assessed investigator blinding. Approximately 27% included an "unsure" answer option for treatment guess, and 38% asked the reason for the guess. There were no clear patterns in BA reporting across time nor based on treatment type. Seventeen trials provided sufficient data to calculate Bang Blinding Index (BI) to determine blinding success. Participants remained blinded (BI = 0 &#xb1; 0.2) in 10/17 placebo and 10/17 treatment arms, 6 placebo and 5 treatment arms had a BI > 0.2 suggesting possible unblinding, whereas 1 placebo and 2 treatment arms had a BI < -0.2 suggesting misinformed guessing. Overall, we found that BAs are done in a minority of published neuropathic pain trials and with variable methodology. Given the importance of minimizing risk of bias because of treatment unblinding, future studies should consider including BAs, and further consensus building is necessary to determine if and how BAs should be conducted and interpreted in analgesic clinical trials.

Bias

Optimizing power in allocating resources to exposure assessment in an epidemiologic study.

We consider an epidemiologic study with a fixed budget, in which resources may be put into increasing sample size or into improving accuracy of exposure assessments. To maximize study power (efficiency), improving accuracy is preferable if and only if the proportional increase in the square of the validity coefficient is more than the proportional increase in total study costs per subject that is required to achieve it. (The validity coefficient is the correlation between the true exposure and the approximate assessment in the study base.) This is most likely to be so if the cost of exposure measurement remains a small proportion of the overall costs per subject. The design with maximum power will not generally have minimum bias in measure of effect, so that alternative optimality criteria are required if this bias is important.

Bias