The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study Commentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuition
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe doctors' prognostic accuracy in terminally ill patients and to evaluate the determinants of that accuracy. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Five outpatient hospice programmes in Chicago. PARTICIPANTS: 343 doctors provided survival estimates for 468 terminally ill patients at the time of hospice referral. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patients' estimated and actual survival. RESULTS: Median survival was 24 days. Only 20% (92/468) of predictions were accurate (within 33% of actual survival); 63% (295/468) were overoptimistic and 17% (81/468) were overpessimistic. Overall, doctors overestimated survival by a factor of 5.3. Few patient or doctor characteristics were associated with prognostic accuracy. Male patients were 58% less likely to have overpessimistic predictions. Non-oncology medical specialists were 326% more likely than general internists to make overpessimistic predictions. Doctors in the upper quartile of practice experience were the most accurate. As duration of doctor-patient relationship increased and time since last contact decreased, prognostic accuracy decreased. CONCLUSION: Doctors are inaccurate in their prognoses for terminally ill patients and the error is systematically optimistic. The inaccuracy is, in general, not restricted to certain kinds of doctors or patients. These phenomena may be adversely affecting the quality of care given to patients near the end of life.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Machine Learning methods for Quantitative Radiomic Biomarkers
Parmar, C., Grossmann, P., Bussink, J., Lambin, P., & Aerts, H. J. W. L. (2015) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep13087 · Cited by 1,019
Communicating with realism and hope: incurable cancer patients' views on the disclosure of prognosis
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Lobb, E. A., Pendlebury, S. C., Leighl, N., Mac Leod, C., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.11.138 · Cited by 582
Communicating prognosis in cancer care: a systematic review of the literature
Hagerty, R. G., Butow, P. N., Ellis, P. M., Dimitry, S., & Tattersall, M. H. N. (2005) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdi211 · Cited by 504
Truth may hurt but deceit hurts more: communication in palliative care
Fallowfield, L. J., Jenkins, V. A., & Beveridge, H. A. (2002) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1191/0269216302pm575oa · Cited by 498
End-of-Life Care Discussions Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Cohort Study
Mack, J. W., Cronin, A., Taback, N., Huskamp, H. A., Keating, N. L., Malin, J. L., Earle, C. C., & Weeks, J. C. (2012) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-156-3-201202070-00008 · Cited by 420
Metadata
- Authors
- Christakis, N. A.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2000-02-19
- Volume
- 320
- Issue
- 7233
- Pages
- 469-473
- ISSN
- 0959-8138 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1965380313
- Cited by
- 1,421
- References
- 0
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study Commentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.320.7233.469
- The paper
- Christakis, N. A. (2000). Extent and determinants of error in doctors' prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study Commentary: Why do doctors overestimate? Commentary: Prognoses should be based on proved indices not intuition. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7233.469
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.