HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Michael A. Borger Tirone E. David Gideon Cohen Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ivanov, J. Articles by Naylor, C. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ivanov, J. Articles by Naylor, C. D.

Ann Thorac Surg 2000;70:162-168
© 2000 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

---

Original articles: Cardiovascular

Predictive accuracy study: comparing a statistical model to clinicians’ estimates of outcomes after coronary bypass surgery

^a Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, the Toronto General Hospital and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Address reprint requests to Ms Ivanov, Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Toronto General Hospital, CCRW 4-803, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, Canada M5G 2C4
e-mail: joan.ivanov{at}uhn.on.ca

Background. The purpose of this study was to compare clinicians’ prior probability estimates of operative mortality (OM) and prolonged intensive care unit stay (ICU) length of stay greater than 48 hours after coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) with estimates derived from statistical models alone.

Methods. Nine clinicians estimated the predicted probability of OM and ICU stay greater than 48 hours from an abstract of information for each of 100 patients selected from the 1996 to 1997 database of 1,904 patients who underwent isolated CABG. Logistic regression models were used to calculate the predicted probability of OM and ICU stay greater than 48 hours for each patient. The study sample was split into two parts; clinicians were randomly given access to a predictive rule to guide their judgements for one part of the study.

Results. Clinicians’ estimates were similar with or without access to the rule, and both parts of the study were therefore pooled. Clinicians significantly overestimated the probability of OM (model 6.3% ± 1%, clinicians 7.6% ± 3%, p = 0.0001) and ICU stay greater than 48 hours (model 25% ± 2%, clinicians 28% ± 1%, p = 0.0012). Clinicians’ estimates of OM were not significantly higher than the model’s for nonsurvivors (0.8% ± 0.7%, p = 0.2), but were significantly higher for survivors (1.4% ± 0.3%, p = 0.039).

Conclusions. Clinicians trusted their own empiric estimates rather than a predictive rule and overestimated the probability of OM and ICU stay greater than 48 hours.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. G Altman, Y. Vergouwe, P. Royston, and K. G M Moons Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model BMJ, May 28, 2009; 338(may28_1): b605 - b605. [Full Text]

				J. Nilsson, L. Algotsson, P. Hoglund, C. Luhrs, and J. Brandt Comparison of 19 pre-operative risk stratification models in open-heart surgery Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2006; 27(7): 867 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. D. Desai, M. P. Pelletier, H. R. Mallidi, G. T. Christakis, G. N. Cohen, S. E. Fremes, and B. S. Goldman Why Is Off-Pump Coronary Surgery Uncommon in Canada? Results of a Population-Based Survey of Canadian Heart Surgeons Circulation, September 14, 2004; 110(11_suppl_1): II-7 - II-12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Liao and D. B. Mark Clinical prediction models: are we building better mousetraps? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., September 3, 2003; 42(5): 851 - 853. [Full Text] [PDF]