Chow, 2005 739 25 nr 111 nr -86 Christakis, 2000 468 77 28-133† 24† 12-58† 53 Evans, 1985 149 81 28-182 21 43-180 60 Fairchild, 2014 395 219 nr 126 nr 93 Faris, 2003 162 21 45-135 10 nr 11 Forster, 1988 540 46 nr 24 nr 22 Heyse-Moore, 1987 50 56 14 33-84† 7-28† 42 Lam, 2008 167 70 43-137 76 30-160 -6 Lamont, 2001 300 75 nr 26 nr 49 Maltoni, 1994 100 42 nr 35 nr 7 Maltoni, 1995 530 32 42† 28-70† 13-62† 10 Muers, 1996 203 36 21-82 38 22-85 -2 Oxenham, 1998 30 17 21† 14-35† 9-25† 4 Parkes, 1972 74 28† 24-56† 21† 9-34† 7 Taniyama, 2014 75 120 60-180 121 40-234 -1 Higginson a, 2002 275 28 10-32 42 nr -14 Higginson b, 2002 84 176-516 nr 42 Hui a, 2011 127 14 nr 12 nr 2 127 20 nr 12 nr Hui b, 2011† 8 Higginson a: upper estimate Higginson b: lower estimate. Hui a: Doctors, Hui b: Nurse Data extracted from previous review [] † nr: not reported IQR: Interquartile Range This study appears in other tables † Fig 3shows the professional error score for each study. Two of the studies [, ] in Fig 3 appear twice as each study reported two separate prognostic estimates: from doctors and nurses in one paper [] and upper and lower estimates in another []. Fig 3: Professional Error Score (PES) of estimates of survival those clinicians’ studies where clinicians were asked to provide a continuous temporal estimate of survival. The black bar in this figure indicates the overall accuracy of the clinicians’ estimates (0 indicates perfect accuracy, positive values indicate over-estimates and negative values indicate under-estimates)
Chow, 2005 739 25 nr 111 nr -86 Christakis, 2000 468 77 28-133† 24† 12-58† 53 Evans, 1985 149 81 28-182 21 43-180 60 Fairchild, 2014 395 219 nr 126 nr 93 Faris, 2003 162 21 45-135 10 nr 11 Forster, 1988 540 46 nr 24 nr 22 Heyse-Moore, 1987 50 56 33-84† 14 7-28† 42 Lam, 2008 167 70 43-137 76 30-160 -6 Lamont, 2001 300 75 nr 26 nr 49 Maltoni, 1994 100 42 nr 35 nr 7 Maltoni, 1995 530 42† 28-70† 32 13-62† 10 Muers, 1996 203 36 21-82 38 22-85 -2 Oxenham, 1998 30 21† 14-35† 17 9-25† 4 Parkes, 1972 74 28† 24-56† 21† 9-34† 7 Taniyama, 2014 75 120 60-180 121 40-234 -1 Higginson a, 2002 275 28 10-32 42 nr -14 Higginson b, 2002 84 176-516 nr 42 Hui a, 2011 127 14 nr 12 nr 2 Hui b, 2011† 127 20 nr 12 nr 8 Higginson a: upper estimate Higginson b: lower estimate. Hui a: Doctors, Hui b: Nurse † Data extracted from previous review [] nr: not reported IQR: Interquartile Range † This study appears in other tables Fig 3shows the professional error score for each study. Two of the studies [, ] in Fig 3 appear twice as each study reported two separate prognostic estimates: from doctors and nurses in one paper [] and upper and lower estimates in another []. Fig 3: Professional Error Score (PES) of clinicians’ estimates of survival those studies where clinicians were asked to provide a continuous temporal estimate of survival. The black bar in this figure indicates the overall accuracy of the clinicians’ estimates (0 indicates perfect accuracy, positive values indicate over-estimates and negative values indicate under-estimates)
whiteEtAl_2016_PlosONE.docx