A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1075
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3195
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The Surprise Question and clinician-predicted prognosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

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) I=97.2%), specificity 0.69 ((0.63 to 0.74) I=99.7%), positive predictive value 0.40 ((0.35 to 0.45) I=99.4%), negative predictive value 0.89 ((0.87 to 0.91) I=99.7%) and accuracy 0.71 ((0.68 to 0.75) I=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.

Prospero Registration Number: CRD32022298236.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11874281PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/spcare-2024-004879DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surprise question
20
negative predictive
8
surprise
5
question clinician-predicted
4
clinician-predicted prognosis
4
prognosis systematic
4
systematic review
4
review meta-analysis
4
meta-analysis background
4
background surprise
4

Similar Publications