International Survey of Emergency Physicians’ Priorities for Clinical Decision Rules
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: One of the first stages in the development of new clinical decision rules (CDRs) is determination of need. This study examined the clinical priorities of emergency physicians (EPs) working in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States for the development of future CDRs. METHODS: The authors administered an e-mail and postal survey to members of the national emergency medicine (EM) associations in Australasia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Results were analyzed via frequency distributions. RESULTS: The total response rate was 54.8% (1,150/2,100). The respondents were primarily male (74%), with a mean age of 42.5 years (SD +/- 8), and a mean of 12 years of experience (SD +/- 7). The top 10 clinical priorities (% selected) were: 1) investigation of febrile child < 36 months (62%); 2) identification of central or serious vertigo (42%); 3) lumbar puncture or admission of febrile child < 3 months (41%); 4) imaging for suspected transient ischemic attack (39%); 5) admission for anterior chest pain (37%); 6) computed tomography (CT) angiography for pulmonary embolus (30%); 7) admission for suicide risk (29%); 8) ultrasound for pain or bleeding in the first trimester of pregnancy (28%); 9) nonspecific weakness in elders (26%); and 10) CT for abdominal pain (25%). Between study countries, there was consistency in identification of clinical problems, but variation in prioritization. CONCLUSIONS: This international survey identified the sampled EPs' priorities for the future development of CDRs. The top priority overall was investigation of the febrile child < 36 months. These results will be valuable to researchers for future development of CDRs in EM that are relevant internationally.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".