Saskia Haitjema, Steven W J Nijman, Inge Verkouter, John J L Jacobs, Folkert W Asselbergs, Karel G M Moons, Ines Beekers, Thomas P A Debray, Michiel L Bots
{"title":"The use of imputation in clinical decision support systems: a cardiovascular risk management pilot vignette study among clinicians.","authors":"Saskia Haitjema, Steven W J Nijman, Inge Verkouter, John J L Jacobs, Folkert W Asselbergs, Karel G M Moons, Ines Beekers, Thomas P A Debray, Michiel L Bots","doi":"10.1093/ehjdh/ztae058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>A major challenge of the use of prediction models in clinical care is missing data. Real-time imputation may alleviate this. However, to what extent clinicians accept this solution remains unknown. We aimed to assess acceptance of real-time imputation for missing patient data in a clinical decision support system (CDSS) including 10-year cardiovascular absolute risk for the individual patient.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We performed a vignette study extending an existing CDSS with the real-time imputation method joint modelling imputation (JMI). We included 17 clinicians to use the CDSS with three different vignettes, describing potential use cases (missing data, no risk estimate; imputed values, risk estimate based on imputed data; complete information). In each vignette, missing data were introduced to mimic a situation as could occur in clinical practice. Acceptance of end-users was assessed on three different axes: clinical realism, comfortableness, and added clinical value. Overall, the imputed predictor values were found to be clinically reasonable and according to the expectations. However, for binary variables, use of a probability scale to express uncertainty was deemed inconvenient. The perceived comfortableness with imputed risk prediction was low, and confidence intervals were deemed too wide for reliable decision-making. The clinicians acknowledged added value for using JMI in clinical practice when used for educational, research, or informative purposes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Handling missing data in CDSS via JMI is useful, but more accurate imputations are needed to generate comfort in clinicians for use in routine care. Only then can CDSS create clinical value by improving decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":72965,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Digital health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11417486/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztae058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: A major challenge of the use of prediction models in clinical care is missing data. Real-time imputation may alleviate this. However, to what extent clinicians accept this solution remains unknown. We aimed to assess acceptance of real-time imputation for missing patient data in a clinical decision support system (CDSS) including 10-year cardiovascular absolute risk for the individual patient.
Methods and results: We performed a vignette study extending an existing CDSS with the real-time imputation method joint modelling imputation (JMI). We included 17 clinicians to use the CDSS with three different vignettes, describing potential use cases (missing data, no risk estimate; imputed values, risk estimate based on imputed data; complete information). In each vignette, missing data were introduced to mimic a situation as could occur in clinical practice. Acceptance of end-users was assessed on three different axes: clinical realism, comfortableness, and added clinical value. Overall, the imputed predictor values were found to be clinically reasonable and according to the expectations. However, for binary variables, use of a probability scale to express uncertainty was deemed inconvenient. The perceived comfortableness with imputed risk prediction was low, and confidence intervals were deemed too wide for reliable decision-making. The clinicians acknowledged added value for using JMI in clinical practice when used for educational, research, or informative purposes.
Conclusion: Handling missing data in CDSS via JMI is useful, but more accurate imputations are needed to generate comfort in clinicians for use in routine care. Only then can CDSS create clinical value by improving decision-making.