Cited by 1,357Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Clinical Prediction Rules: Applications and Methodological Standards

Wasson, John H., Sox, Harold C., Neff, Raymond K., Goldman, Lee·1985·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

The objective of clinical prediction rules is to reduce the uncertainty inherent in medical practice by defining how to use clinical findings to make predictions. Clinical prediction rules are derived from systematic clinical observations. They can help physicians identify patients who require diagnostic tests, treatment, or hospitalization. Before adopting a prediction rule, clinicians must evaluate its applicability to their patients. We describe methodological standards that can be used to decide whether a prediction rule is suitable for adoption in a clinician's practice. We applied these standards to 33 reports of prediction rules; 42 per cent of the reports contained an adequate description of the prediction rules, the patients, and the clinical setting. The misclassification rate of the rule was measured in only 34 per cent of reports, and the effects of the rule on patient care were described in only 6 per cent of reports. If the objectives of clinical prediction rules are to be fully achieved, authors and readers need to pay close attention to basic principles of study design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejm198509263131306

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Various reports have indicated that in prediction modelling research there is an unfortunate practice of developing new models instead of externally validating or updating existing models.

    “Various reports have indicated that in prediction modelling research there is an unfortunate practice of developing new models instead of externally validating or updating existing models [8]–[10],[15],[29],[36],[48].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wasson, J. H., Sox, H. C., Neff, R. K., & Goldman, L.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1985-09-26
Volume
313
Issue
13
Pages
793-799
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2012301002
Cited by
1,357
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 58 · 2012: 63
FWCI
3.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
clinical prediction rules, methodological standards, misclassification rate, research design, clinical decision-making, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Diagnostic Errors, Heart Arrest, Humans, Probability, Prognosis, Statistics as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review