↓ Skip to main content

The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
policy
2 policy sources
twitter
153 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
295 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
300 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The “surprise question” for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2017
DOI 10.1503/cmaj.160775
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Downar, Russell Goldman, Ruxandra Pinto, Marina Englesakis, Neill K.J. Adhikari

Abstract

The surprise question - "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?" - has been used to identify patients at high risk of death who might benefit from palliative care services. Our objective was to systematically review the performance characteristics of the surprise question in predicting death. We searched multiple electronic databases from inception to 2016 to identify studies that prospectively screened patients with the surprise question and reported on death at 6 to 18 months. We constructed models of hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (sROCs) to determine prognostic performance. Sixteen studies (17 cohorts, 11 621 patients) met the selection criteria. For the outcome of death at 6 to 18 months, the pooled prognostic characteristics were sensitivity 67.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.7%-76.7%), specificity 80.2% (73.3%-85.6%), positive likelihood ratio 3.4 (95% CI 2.8-4.1), negative likelihood ratio 0.41 (95% CI 0.32-0.54), positive predictive value 37.1% (95% CI 30.2%-44.6%) and negative predictive value 93.1% (95% CI 91.0%-94.8%). The surprise question had worse discrimination in patients with noncancer illness (area under sROC curve 0.77 [95% CI 0.73-0.81]) than in patients with cancer (area under sROC curve 0.83 [95% CI 0.79-0.87; p = 0.02 for difference]). Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, often because they had a low or unknown participation rate or had missing data. The surprise question performs poorly to modestly as a predictive tool for death, with worse performance in noncancer illness. Further studies are needed to develop accurate tools to identify patients with palliative care needs and to assess the surprise question for this purpose.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 153 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 300 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 299 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 41 14%
Student > Master 37 12%
Researcher 33 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 8%
Student > Postgraduate 22 7%
Other 72 24%
Unknown 70 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 133 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 42 14%
Social Sciences 10 3%
Psychology 5 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 14 5%
Unknown 93 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 131. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 August 2023.
All research outputs
#323,220
of 25,754,670 outputs
Outputs from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#575
of 9,545 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#6,710
of 324,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Canadian Medical Association Journal
#17
of 116 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,754,670 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,545 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 34.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,761 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 116 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.