European Heart Journal Advance Access originally published online on April 17, 2007
European Heart Journal 2007 28(9):1045-1046; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehm084
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© The European Society of Cardiology 2007. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
Barriers to clinical risk scores adoption
Dipartimento di Medicina Interna, Cardioangiologia, Epatologia (Padiglione 11), University of Bologna, Via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy
* Corresponding author. Tel:/fax: +39 (0) 513 47290. E-mail address: raffaele.bugiardini@unibo.it
This editorial refers to ‘Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better’
by A.T. Yan et al., on page 1072
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Variability in physician decision-making is evident from recent studies on acute coronary syndrome documenting substantial differences in the use of various cardiac procedures.1 Fundamental to decision-making is the recognition of the most powerful predictors of survival. It is essential for the cardiovascular specialists to attempt and define the appropriate indications for medications and procedures and to base these recommendations on data from clinical research studies whenever possible.
Clinical judgment
The essential feature of clinical judgment is that physicians do not act solely on an evidence basis or on an arbitrary basis. Clinical judgment combines personal clinical experience, published research, patient perspectives, and other insights. Clinical judgment, however, might be a flaw. Common elements that may produce errors include conflicting information,
Guidelines in clinical practice
Conflicting information
Clinical risk scores may run counter to established rules
Clinical value of the risk scores in patients without obstructive lesions
Additional barriers
Approaches that enhance adoption of risk scores
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in EHJ:
- Risk scores for risk stratification in acute coronary syndromes: useful but simpler is not necessarily better
- Andrew T. Yan, Raymond T. Yan, Mary Tan, Amparo Casanova, Marino Labinaz, Kumar Sridhar, David H. Fitchett, Anatoly Langer, and Shaun G. Goodman
EHJ 2007 28: 1072-1078.[Abstract] [FREE Full Text]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  J. C. Kaski C-reactive protein improves risk prediction in patients with acute coronary syndrome, or does it? Eur. Heart J., October 23, 2009; (2009) ehp435v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, and S. G. Goodman Is Concentration on More Intensive Treatment for Younger Patients More Rational and Humane Than Ignorant?--Reply Arch Intern Med, August 10, 2009; 169(15): 1442 - 1443. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A T Yan, R T Yan, S Jedrzkiewicz, and S G Goodman Evaluation of risk scores for risk stratification of acute coronary syndromes Heart, June 15, 2009; 95(12): 1019 - 1019. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. A. Wong, S. G. Goodman, R. T. Yan, R. Wald, A. J. Bagnall, R. C. Welsh, G. C. Wong, J. Kornder, K. A. Eagle, P. G. Steg, et al. Temporal management patterns and outcomes of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes in patients with kidney dysfunction Eur. Heart J., March 1, 2009; 30(5): 549 - 557. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. T. Yan, R. T. Yan, T. Huynh, A. Casanova, F. E. Raimondo, D. H. Fitchett, A. Langer, S. G. Goodman, and for the Canadian Acute Coronary Syndrome Registry Understanding Physicians' Risk Stratification of Acute Coronary Syndromes: Insights From the Canadian ACS 2 Registry Arch Intern Med, February 23, 2009; 169(4): 372 - 378. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|