posted on 2015-12-01, 11:43authored byAnnette Plüddemann, Emma Wallace, Claire Bankhead, Claire Keogh, Danielle Van der Windt, Daniel Lasserson, Rose GalvinRose Galvin, Ivan Moschetti, Karen Kearley, Kirsty K. O'Brien, Sharon Sanders, Susan Mallett, Uriell Malanda, Matthew Thompson, Tom Fahey, Richard Stevens
Background
The publication of clinical prediction rules
(CPRs) studies has risen significantly. It is
unclear if this reflects increasing usage of these
tools in clinical practice or how this may vary
across clinical areas.
Aim
To review clinical guidelines in selected areas
and survey GPs in order to explore CPR
usefulness in the opinion of experts and use at
the point of care.
Design and setting
A review of clinical guidelines and survey of
UK GPs.
Method
Clinical guidelines in eight clinical domains
with published CPRs were reviewed for
recommendations to use CPRs including
primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,
transient ischaemic attack (TIA) and stroke,
diabetes mellitus, fracture risk assessment
in osteoporosis, lower limb fractures, breast
cancer, depression, and acute infections in
childhood. An online survey of 401 UK GPs was
also conducted.
Results
Guideline review: Of 7637 records screened by
title and/or abstract, 243 clinical guidelines met
inclusion criteria. CPRs were most commonly
recommended in guidelines regarding primary
prevention of cardiovascular disease (67%) and
depression (67%). There was little consensus
across various clinical guidelines as to which
CPR to use preferentially. Survey: Of 401
responders to the GP survey, most were aware
of and applied named CPRs in the clinical areas
of cardiovascular disease and depression. The
commonest reasons for using CPRs were to
guide management and conform to local policy
requirements.
Conclusion
GPs use CPRs to guide management but
also to comply with local policy requirements.
Future research could focus on which clinical
areas clinicians would most benefit from CPRs
and promoting the use of robust, externally
validated CPRs.
History
Publication
British Journal of General Practice;64 (621), pp. e233-e242