Should We Use Nomograms to Predict Outcome?

F. K H Chun, Alberto Briganti, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Markus Graefen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Objective: To address the controversy surrounding the clinical significance of incorporating nomographic predictions into clinical decision making. Methods: We critically reviewed the literature to assess the clinical value of nomograms in clinical decision making. Results: The nomogram methodology offers a valid approach for the most accurate individual risk stratification. In the presence of sparse prospective evidence, most accurate and reliable retrospective risk stratification is helpful in clinical decision making. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinical decision making represents a challenging and complex procedure. Unbiased risk stratification improves clinical decision making. However, careful selection and acknowledgement of limitations prior to choosing a decision aid are mandatory.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)396-399
Number of pages4
JournalEuropean Urology, Supplements
Volume7
Issue number5
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2008

Fingerprint

Nomograms
Decision Support Techniques
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Clinical decision making
  • Individual risk stratification
  • Nomogram
  • Prostate cancer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Urology

Cite this

Should We Use Nomograms to Predict Outcome? / Chun, F. K H; Briganti, Alberto; Karakiewicz, Pierre I.; Graefen, Markus.

In: European Urology, Supplements, Vol. 7, No. 5, 04.2008, p. 396-399.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Chun, F. K H ; Briganti, Alberto ; Karakiewicz, Pierre I. ; Graefen, Markus. / Should We Use Nomograms to Predict Outcome?. In: European Urology, Supplements. 2008 ; Vol. 7, No. 5. pp. 396-399.
@article{b1b7ac62274e425c82c7a3e76e64c212,
title = "Should We Use Nomograms to Predict Outcome?",
abstract = "Objective: To address the controversy surrounding the clinical significance of incorporating nomographic predictions into clinical decision making. Methods: We critically reviewed the literature to assess the clinical value of nomograms in clinical decision making. Results: The nomogram methodology offers a valid approach for the most accurate individual risk stratification. In the presence of sparse prospective evidence, most accurate and reliable retrospective risk stratification is helpful in clinical decision making. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinical decision making represents a challenging and complex procedure. Unbiased risk stratification improves clinical decision making. However, careful selection and acknowledgement of limitations prior to choosing a decision aid are mandatory.",
keywords = "Clinical decision making, Individual risk stratification, Nomogram, Prostate cancer",
author = "Chun, {F. K H} and Alberto Briganti and Karakiewicz, {Pierre I.} and Markus Graefen",
year = "2008",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1016/j.eursup.2008.01.011",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "396--399",
journal = "European Urology, Supplements",
issn = "1569-9056",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Should We Use Nomograms to Predict Outcome?

AU - Chun, F. K H

AU - Briganti, Alberto

AU - Karakiewicz, Pierre I.

AU - Graefen, Markus

PY - 2008/4

Y1 - 2008/4

N2 - Objective: To address the controversy surrounding the clinical significance of incorporating nomographic predictions into clinical decision making. Methods: We critically reviewed the literature to assess the clinical value of nomograms in clinical decision making. Results: The nomogram methodology offers a valid approach for the most accurate individual risk stratification. In the presence of sparse prospective evidence, most accurate and reliable retrospective risk stratification is helpful in clinical decision making. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinical decision making represents a challenging and complex procedure. Unbiased risk stratification improves clinical decision making. However, careful selection and acknowledgement of limitations prior to choosing a decision aid are mandatory.

AB - Objective: To address the controversy surrounding the clinical significance of incorporating nomographic predictions into clinical decision making. Methods: We critically reviewed the literature to assess the clinical value of nomograms in clinical decision making. Results: The nomogram methodology offers a valid approach for the most accurate individual risk stratification. In the presence of sparse prospective evidence, most accurate and reliable retrospective risk stratification is helpful in clinical decision making. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that clinical decision making represents a challenging and complex procedure. Unbiased risk stratification improves clinical decision making. However, careful selection and acknowledgement of limitations prior to choosing a decision aid are mandatory.

KW - Clinical decision making

KW - Individual risk stratification

KW - Nomogram

KW - Prostate cancer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=44549088270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=44549088270&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.eursup.2008.01.011

DO - 10.1016/j.eursup.2008.01.011

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:44549088270

VL - 7

SP - 396

EP - 399

JO - European Urology, Supplements

JF - European Urology, Supplements

SN - 1569-9056

IS - 5

ER -