Download PDF
Methods Inf Med 1996; 35(01): 1-4
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1634631
Original Article
Schattauer GmbH

Assigning Value to Clinical Information – A Major Limiting Factor in the Implementation of Decision-Support Systems

F. T. de Dombal
1   Clinical Information Science Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
14 February 2018 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

This paper deals with a major difficulty and potential limiting factor in present-day decision support - that of assigning precise value to an item (or group of items) of clinical information. Historical determinist descriptive thinking has been challenged by current concepts of uncertainty and probability, but neither view is adequate. Four equations are proposed outlining factors which affect the value of clinical information, which explain some previously puzzling observations concerning decision support. It is suggested that without accommodation of these concepts, computer-aided decision support cannot progress further, but if they can be accommodated in future programs, the implications may be profound.

Keywords

Diagnosis - Uncertainty - Probability
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Barahona P, Durinck J, Florin C. et al Knowledge processing for decision support in the health sector. In: Barahona P, Christensen JP. eds Technology and Informatics. Knowledge and Decisions in Health Telematics. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1994: 3-60.
    Google Scholar
  • 2 Degoulet P, Fieschi P. Informatique Médicale. Paris: Masson; 1994
    Google Scholar
  • 3 Wulff HR. Rational Diagnosis and Treatment. Oxford: Blackwell Scientific Publications; 1976
    Google Scholar
  • 4 McBurney C. Actue appendicitis. New York Med J 1889; 50: 676.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Ramsden WH, Mannion RAJ, Simpkins KG, de Dombal FT. Is the appendix where you think it is – and if not does it matter. Clin Radiol 1993; 47: 100-3.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Card WI. Towards a calculus of medicine. Med Ann 1967; 85: 9-21.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Weiner N. Non-linear prediction and dynamics. In: Proceedings of Third Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and Probabiliy. (Vol 3) Berkeley: University of California Press; 1956: 247.
    Google Scholar
  • 8 de Dombal FT. Acute Abdominal Pain. 2nd Ed. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 1990
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Lusted LB. Introduction to Medical Decision Making. 1st. Ed.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Reggia JA, Tuhrim S. An overview of the methods for computer assisted medical decision making. In: Reggia JA, Tuhrim S. eds Computer assisted Medical Decision Making. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1985. Vol. 1: 3-46.
    Google Scholar
  • 11 de Dombal FT, Leaper DJ, Staniland JR, Horrocks JC, McCann AP. Computer aided diagnosis of acute abdominal pain. Brit Med J 1972; 2: 9-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gill PW, Leaper DJ, Guillou PJ. et al Observer variation in clinical diagnosis. A computer-aided assessment of its magnitude and importance in 552 patients with abdominal pain. Meth Inform Med 1973; 12: 108-13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Adams ID, Chan M, Clifford PC. et al Computer aided diagnosis of abdominal pain: A multi-centre study. Brit Med K 1986; 293: 800-4.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 De Domball FT. Objective medical decision making: acute abdominal pain. In: Beneken JEW, Thévenin V. eds. Advances in Biomedical Engineering. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 1993: 65-87.
    Google Scholar
  • 15 De Dombal FT. Computer-aided decision support. In praise of level playing fields (Editorial). Meth Inform Med 1994; 332: 161-3.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Heathfield HA, Wyatt J. Philosophies for the design and development of clinical decision-support systems. Meth Inform Med 1993; 32: 1-8.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar