This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Speroff, T. Articles by Dawson, N. V. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Speroff, T. Articles by Dawson, N. V. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Lens Model Analysis of Hemodynamic status in the critically III

Alfred F. Connors, JR., MD

Neal V. Dawson, MD

The lens model recently has been extended to consider multiple outcomes and sequential use of clinical information. The authors have used this extended model 1) to describe the relationship between clinical information and physicians' assessments of hemodynamic sta tus, 2) to describe the empirical relationship between clinical information and physiologic measures of hemodynamic status, and 3) to compare physicians' use of information with its empirical utility. Physicians prospectively provided estimates of cardiac index and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure for 440 intensive care unit patients prior to right heart catheteri zation. The correlation between physicians' estimates and measured hemodynamic status was lower than that between clinical information and hemodynamic status (0.42 versus 0.67). Only 7% of physicians' judgment was related to subsequent ancillary testing. Empirically, subsequent ancillary testing contributed 30% to the explanation of hemodynamic status. The lens model describes limitations of physician judgment in estimating left ventricular function and helps explain how patient features relate to measured hemodynamic status. Key words: lens model; social judgment theory; physician judgment; hemodynamic status. (Med Decis Making 1989;9:243-252)

Medical Decision Making, Vol. 9, No. 4, 243-252 (1989)
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8900900403


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				F. Kee, C. C. Patterson, A. E. Wilson, J. M. McConnell, S. M. Wheeler, and J. D. Watson Judgment Analysis of Prioritization Decisions within a Dialysis Program in One United Kingdom Region Med Decis Making, April 1, 2002; 22(2): 140 - 151. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. Knutsson, L. Lysell, and M. Rohlin Dentists' Judgment Strategies on Prophylactic Removal of Mandibular Third Molars Journal of Dental Research, December 1, 2000; 79(12): 1989 - 1995. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. R. Arkes The Covariance Decomposition of the Probability Score and Its Use in Evaluating Prognostic Estimates: Hal R. Arkes, PhD, Neal V. Dawson, Md, Theodore Speroff, PhD, Frank E. Harrell, Jr., PhD, Carlos Alzola, Ms, Russell Phillips, Md, Norman Desbiens, Md, Robert K. Oye, Md, William Knaus, Md, Alfred F. Connors, Jr., Md, and the Support Investigators Med Decis Making, June 1, 1995; 15(2): 120 - 131. [Abstract] [PDF]

				N. V. Dawson, A. F. Connors, T. Speroff, A. Kemka, P. Shaw, and H. R. Arkes Hemodynamic Assessment in Managing the Critically III: Is Physician Confidence Warranted? Med Decis Making, August 1, 1993; 13(3): 258 - 266. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. A. Diam Lenticular Opacities Med Decis Making, June 1, 1990; 10(2): 147 - 147. [PDF]

				G. A. Diamond Through a Lens, Darkly Med Decis Making, December 1, 1989; 9(4): 253 - 256. [PDF]