Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 16513922

Guidelines for developing and testing clinical decision rules.

Abstract

Clinical decision rules (CDRs) are decision support tools that synthesize evidence for use in bedside practice. They differ from other decision support tools in the methodological rigor with which they are developed. This article describes the important considerations in developing a CDR, including identifying the need for the rule, carefully defining the outcome variable, identifying and selecting the possible predictor variables, and guidelines for initial testing of the CDR. The process of developing and testing CDRs is best undertaken by teams of researchers, with clinical nurses providing important input in both the development and testing. It's important that clinical nurses understand both the contributions of CDRs and their inherent limitations, as appropriate use of well-developed, well-validated CDRs will become more and more a necessity in evidence-based nursing.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Susan E Shapiro. 2006. Guidelines for developing and testing clinical decision rules.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945905283722

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

[Inter-professional relationship between primary health care (PHC) and secondary care (hospital) in 1992 and 2000. A Delphi study].

AIM: To evaluate the trends in the inter-professional relationship between primary health care (PHC) and secondary care (hospital) at 2 different moments of the health reform, at its start in 1992 and after a phase of consolidation (2001). DESIGN: Observational study based on modified Delphi technique. SETTING: Valencia Community, Spain. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred and ninety six professionals from Valencia Community were selected (103 PH centre administrators, 43 hospital and PC medical directors, and 50 heads of internal medicine or emergency services). RESULTS: One hundred and ninety six questionnaires were sent out, with a response rate of 38%. In PHC problems remained the same, but the following got worse: "lack of motivation" (+1.34), "lack of overall vision of patients" (+1.10), and "overuse of medical services" (+1.06). The existence of non-integrated out-patient specialists got better (-1.32). In hospitals, "lack of overall vision of patients" got worse (+0.51), but in general problems got better, especially in "lack of communication and dialogue" (-1.14). PC increased its demand for "a single computerized clinical record" (+1.50), drawing up of common protocols (+0.86), and periodic rotations of PC doctors through hospitals (+0.85), but bureaucratic referrals to PC (-0.60) and the need for specialists in PC as consultants (-0.36) diminished. In hospitals all solutions showed lower scores, particularly access of PC doctors to monitoring of admitted patients (-2.44) and PC doctors doing hospital cover (-2.30). CONCLUSIONS: Problems and solutions from PHC and hospitals remain the same, but there is a trend to the worse in PHC, whereas in hospitals the trend is more positive.

Delphi Technique↗

Development of a clinical examination in non-specific low back pain: a Delphi technique.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the discriminatory items of the clinical examination of non-specific low back pain, important to physiotherapists. DESIGN: A focus group and Delphi technique with UK physiotherapists. SUBJECTS: A purposive sample of 30 physiotherapists attended a focus group and completed 3 rounds of Delphi questionnaires. METHODS: Data were analysed using mixed qualitative and quantitative approaches. A frequency content analysis identified commonly identified tests and questions, whilst the Delphi consensus technique assumed consensus had been reached with greater than 80% agreement on item inclusion or exclusion. RESULTS: The focus group established the structure of the clinical examination with 15 domains of questioning or physical testing. Three rounds of Delphi questionnaires established the important items of the clinical examination. The list of tests and questions included items evaluating both the psychosocial and biomedical status of the patient as well as questions screening for red flags. CONCLUSION: This is the first work to establish discriminatory tests in the clinical examination of non-specific low back pain, important to physiotherapists. The clinical examination will subsequently be evaluated for item validity and data will undergo cluster analysis. The items of this clinical examination may provide evidence for the existence of homogenous sub-groups within the heterogeneous non-specific low back pain diagnosis.

Delphi Technique↗