Ankit Gupta, Ruth Burgess, Michael Drozd, John Gierula, Klaus Witte, Sam Straw
{"title":"惊喜问题和临床医生预测的预后:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Ankit Gupta, Ruth Burgess, Michael Drozd, John Gierula, Klaus Witte, Sam Straw","doi":"10.1136/spcare-2024-004879","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Surprise Question, 'Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?' is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I<sup>2</sup>=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I<sup>2</sup>=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I<sup>2</sup>=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I<sup>2</sup>=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I<sup>2</sup>=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD32022298236.</p>","PeriodicalId":9136,"journal":{"name":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","volume":" ","pages":"12-35"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874281/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Ankit Gupta, Ruth Burgess, Michael Drozd, John Gierula, Klaus Witte, Sam Straw\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/spcare-2024-004879\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Surprise Question, 'Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?' is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I<sup>2</sup>=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I<sup>2</sup>=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I<sup>2</sup>=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I<sup>2</sup>=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I<sup>2</sup>=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned.</p><p><strong>Prospero registration number: </strong>CRD32022298236.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9136,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"12-35\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874281/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2024-004879\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2024-004879","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: The Surprise Question, 'Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?' is a simple tool that can be used by clinicians to identify people within the last year of life. This review aimed to determine the accuracy of this assessment, across different healthcare settings, specialties, follow-up periods and respondents.
Methods: Searches were conducted of Medline, Embase, AMED, PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception until 01 January 2024. Studies were included if they reported original data on the ability of the Surprise Question to predict survival. For each study (including subgroups), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy were determined.
Results: Our dataset comprised 56 distinct cohorts, including 68 829 patients. In a pooled analysis, the sensitivity of the Surprise Question was 0.69 ((0.64 to 0.74) I2=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I2=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I2=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I2=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I2=99.3%). The prompt performed best in populations with high event rates, shorter timeframes and when posed to more experienced respondents.
Conclusions: The Surprise Question demonstrated modest accuracy with considerable heterogeneity across the population to which it was applied and to whom it was posed. Prospective studies should test whether the prompt can facilitate timely access to palliative care services, as originally envisioned.
期刊介绍:
Published quarterly in print and continuously online, BMJ Supportive & Palliative Care aims to connect many disciplines and specialties throughout the world by providing high quality, clinically relevant research, reviews, comment, information and news of international importance.
We hold an inclusive view of supportive and palliative care research and we are able to call on expertise to critique the whole range of methodologies within the subject, including those working in transitional research, clinical trials, epidemiology, behavioural sciences, ethics and health service research. Articles with relevance to clinical practice and clinical service development will be considered for publication.
In an international context, many different categories of clinician and healthcare workers do clinical work associated with palliative medicine, specialist or generalist palliative care, supportive care, psychosocial-oncology and end of life care. We wish to engage many specialties, not only those traditionally associated with supportive and palliative care. We hope to extend the readership to doctors, nurses, other healthcare workers and researchers in medical and surgical specialties, including but not limited to cardiology, gastroenterology, geriatrics, neurology, oncology, paediatrics, primary care, psychiatry, psychology, renal medicine, respiratory medicine.