Comparison of the Evaluations of a Case-Based Reasoning Decision Support Tool by Expert Reviewers with those of End Users.
Abstract
Decision-support tools (DST) are typically developed by computer engineers for use
by clinicians. Prototype testing DSTs may be performed relatively easily by one or two clinical
experts. The costly alternative is to test each prototype on a larger number of diverse clinicians,
based on the untested assumption that these evaluations would more accurately reflect those of actual end users.
We hypothesized substantial or better agreement (as defined by a κ-statistic greater
than 0.6) between the evaluations of a case based reasoning (CBR) DST predicting ED admission for bronchiolitis performed by the clinically diverse end users, to those of two clinical experts who evaluated the same DST output
by clinicians. Prototype testing DSTs may be performed relatively easily by one or two clinical
experts. The costly alternative is to test each prototype on a larger number of diverse clinicians,
based on the untested assumption that these evaluations would more accurately reflect those of actual end users.
We hypothesized substantial or better agreement (as defined by a κ-statistic greater
than 0.6) between the evaluations of a case based reasoning (CBR) DST predicting ED admission for bronchiolitis performed by the clinically diverse end users, to those of two clinical experts who evaluated the same DST output
Research Areas
