We used the following criteria to sort the indices by accuracy (calibration and discrimination), generalizability, bias, usability, and clinical efficacy. Please note that this framework was developed by the authors of ePrognosis. In this sense, it represents expert opinion. It has not undergone peer review and should be viewed a preliminary starting point. Users may weigh certain factors differently than us in sorting prognostic indices.
Excellent: Prospectively tested in a clinical setting demonstrating changes in clinician behavior with beneficial patient outcomes (a measure of clinical efficacy).
Very Good: Maintains accuracy when tested in a national sample or in heterogeneous populations.
Good: Accuracy suffers when tested in heterogeneous settings, or usability is limited.
Moderate: Does not meet above "good" criteria, but at a minimum tested some form of reproducibility or transportability (a validation study was conducted).
We use the following algorithm to determine user-rated use and usefulness of these indices. The index's "bubble" size corresponds to the following factors: