CommentaryPrognosis research: Why is Dr. Lydgate still waiting?
Introduction
“Diseases of the heart are eminently difficult to form predictions on. A good deal of experience—a more lengthened observation—is wanted on the subject. But it is my duty to tell you that death in this disease is often sudden. At the same time, no such results can be predicted. Your condition may be consistent with a tolerably comfortable life for another 15 years or more.” Dr. Lydgate
George Elliott “Middlemarch” 1872
Is prognosis research moribund? Despite more than 130 years of “lengthened observation,” Dr. Lydgate's words remain largely true today. Everyone can cite recent advances in treating and diagnosing disease. Fewer would be able to give examples of progress in our understanding of the future course of established diseases—prognosis. Fewer still would agree on the definition (Box 1) and scope (Box 2) of prognosis research. Prognosis occupied a central role in Greek medicine, yet this has been dying out over the last century [1]. The repeated calls for improved prognostic understanding in the first half of the 20th century [2] went largely unheeded in the second half [3]. Currently, the broad scope of prognostic enquiry (Box 2) is being pursued in a piecemeal, parallel endeavor. Few systematic and sustained programs of prognosis research are funded to investigate the range of factors (host, disease, environment) associated with the range of outcomes constituting prognosis.
Yet by many indicators, prognosis research is vibrant. The questions have never been more important: the length of time that people live with disease is increasing [4]; up to one-third of the life expectancy at age 40 is estimated to be lived with one or more manifestation of cardiovascular disease [5]. International scientific meetings and high-impact journals [6] abound with presentations and publications on prognosis research. Variations in prognosis are increasingly the subject of debate for policy markers, health care professionals, third-party payers and patients. There is an abundance of novel putative prognostic factors, and a proliferation of risk prediction scores. Prognosis of certain conditions is particularly well established; for cancer, national survival by site, age, and year of diagnosis are freely available on the internet [7].
So why then is Dr. Lydgate still waiting for answers? The objective here is to discuss reasons for the possible discordance between the large amount of research activity and slow advances in prognostic understanding. Here it is argued that the potential of a concerted, coordinated research endeavor of cognate disciplines is yet to be realized, in part due to misconceptions of the scope of prognosis research. There are wide variations in prognostic outcomes (see Fig. 1), yet these remain poorly understood. Many arguments have been made that detract from the importance, or minimize the scope, of prognosis research and support the status quo. A polemic is offered, giving the counterperspective. It would be hard to find an individual who was a proponent of all these shibboleths. But to this person, should they exist, and to all others an invitation to debate is extended.
Section snippets
Medical training does not need to train doctors in prognosis
Doctors throughout the world qualify from medical school with scarcely a single seminar, lecture, or practical devoted to prognosis. Prognosis is now virtually extinct as a discrete classroom subject in medical schools. Yet prognosis research is intrinsically related to the practice of clinical medicine—most doctors collect data on patients at one time point and observe them over follow-up for health outcomes. These observations are inchoate prognostic studies. By contrast, randomization in
Prognosis research is a subject without a discipline
False. Prognosis research is necessarily multidisciplinary, including epidemiologists, clinicians, health services researchers, basic biologic scientists, geneticists, social scientists, psychologists, and health economists, among others. However, clinical epidemiology is primus inter pares among the disciplines in prognosis research [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28].
Prognosis research is an oxymoron
Many influences on prognosis are contingent on time and place, threatening the generalizability—and hence scientific validity—of
Conclusion
Progress in prognostic understanding can be gauged using measures such as the amount of variation in prognostic outcomes explained, discovery, and establishment of new prognostic factors, or moving to the top left-hand corner of the ROC curve. Integral to achieving advances across the broad scope of prognosis research is the need to consider the interrelated perspectives of the person experiencing disease, through the clinician, basic scientist, health care policy maker, to the public policy
Acknowledgments
H.H. is supported by a public health career scientist award from the Department of Health.
References (81)
The ellipsis of prognosis in modern medical thought
Soc Sci Med
(1997)- et al.
Lifetime risk of developing coronary heart disease
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
A one-year audit of topics and domains in the Journal of the American Medical Association and the New England Journal of Medicine
Am J Prev Med
(2000) - et al.
A simple risk index for rapid initial triage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an InTIME II substudy
Lancet
(2001) - et al.
Contribution of trends in survival and coronary-event rates to changes in coronary heart disease mortality: 10-year results from 37 WHO MONICA project populations. Monitoring trends and determinants in cardiovascular disease
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and risk of serious coronary heart disease
Lancet
(2002) - et al.
Treatment of myocardial infarction in a coronary care unit. A two year experience with 250 patients
Am J Cardiol
(1967) - et al.
Effect of potentially modifiable risk factors associated with myocardial infarction in 52 countries (the INTERHEART study): case–control study
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Estimation of contribution of changes in coronary care to improving survival, event rates, and coronary heart disease mortality across the WHO MONICA Project populations
Lancet
(2000) - et al.
Use of a simple clinical score to predict prognosis of patients with normal or mildly abnormal resting electrocardiographic findings undergoing evaluation for coronary artery disease
Mayo Clin Proc
(2002)
External validity of randomised controlled trials: “To whom do the results of this trial apply?”
Lancet
Effect of long-acting nifedipine on mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with stable angina requiring treatment (ACTION trial): randomised controlled trial
Lancet
Gender differences in descriptions of angina symptoms and health problems immediately prior to angiography: the ACRE study. Appropriateness of Coronary Revascularisation study
Soc Sci Med
Impact of anemia in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: Analysis from the controlled abciximab and device investigation to lower late angioplasty complications (cadillac) trial
J Am Coll Cardiol
Predictive ability of DNA microarrays for cancer outcomes and correlates: an empirical assessment
Lancet
Genetic associations in large versus small studies: an empirical assessment
Lancet
Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of clinical risk models
Ann Thorac Surg
The prognosis of internal diseases
A cardiovascular life history. A life course analysis of the original Framingham Heart Study cohort
Eur Heart J
SEER Cancer statistics review, 1975–2001
Oxford textbook of medicine
Clinical evidence: the international source of the best available evidence for effective healthcare
Prognostic factors in cancer
Prognosis in neurology
Prognosis of epilepsies
Prognosis of neurological disorders
Prognosis and risk assessment in cardiovascular disease
Challenges in dia-prognostic research
J Epidemiol Community Health
Variation in patient utilities for outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. Implications for clinical practice guidelines. Ischemic Heart Disease Patient Outcomes Research Team
JAMA
Prognosis in medicine: an analysis of its meaning and roles
Theor Med
The Cardiovascular HS. Association of aortic-valve sclerosis with cardiovascular mortality and morbidity in the elderly
N Engl J Med
Molecular classification of cancer: class discovery and class prediction by gene expression monitoring
Science
Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures
BMJ
Use of public performance reports: a survey of patients undergoing cardiac surgery
JAMA
Clinical epidemiology
Clinical judgement
Epidemiology and clinical problems: with coordinated readings
Clinical epidemiology: the essentials
Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research
Cited by (49)
Prognostication in neurology
2022, Handbook of Clinical NeurologyCitation Excerpt :Patients flow through a pyramidal health care system ranging from primary care to specialized centers. Prognosis severity is different at each level of the health care pyramid, usually worse at the apex (Hemingway, 2006). Studies with patients exclusively derived from specialized centers are susceptible to a referral bias.
Prognosticating autoimmune encephalitis: A systematic review
2019, Journal of AutoimmunityHow to conduct a high-quality original study on a prognostic research topic
2018, Surgical OncologyCitation Excerpt :In medicine, prognosis is forecasting the likelihood of a future health state of a patient based on his or her clinical and non-clinical characteristics. An accurate prediction of prognosis may lead to more effective, efficient and targeted care options that can overcome or optimize characteristics that influence future health care states [3–5]. Within a cancer context, for instance, people not only hope to live longer, but also to live with a high-quality of life.
Prognosis as an Intervention
2018, Clinics in PerinatologyCitation Excerpt :Moreover, it is not always clear how to overcome such issues. Despite the improvement of scientific methods in several areas of medicine during recent decades, such as with randomized controlled trials for neonatal and perinatal therapies, some investigators have argued that methods to support prognosis research remain poorly implemented and understood.30,31 Nonetheless, producing an evidence-based prognosis is worth striving for.
Moderate efficiency of clinicians' predictions decreased for blurred clinical conditions and benefits from the use of BRASS index. A longitudinal study on geriatric patients' outcomes
2016, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyCitation Excerpt :This could be a valid aid for complex clinical situations, where clinical judgment might not be accurate enough. Although epidemiological research (as in the Perdove-Anziani study) is more an etiological than a prognostic discipline [56], our data suggest that more high-quality research is required in this direction [8]. This could optimize health service use and functioning and improve clinicians' predictive skills.
Development and validation of an epidemiologic case definition of epilepsy for use with routinely collected Australian health data
2015, Epilepsy and BehaviorCitation Excerpt :Therefore, in developing our model, we included codes for epilepsy (G40) and status epilepticus (G41) and added at least AED monotherapy. This improves the accuracy of new-onset epilepsy ascertainment and minimizes some of the selection bias from hospital-based sampling [33]. However, to distinguish incident from prevalent cases, an important issue in prognosis and comorbidity linkage studies, cross-linking with AED prescriptions needs to be comprehensive, occur early after treatment initiation and have a sufficient treatment-free period prior.