Responses

Download PDFPDF

Mortality prediction models, causal effects, and end-of-life decision making in the intensive care unit
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Better prediction of outcomes to aid end-of-life decision making

    Maley and colleagues provide a provocative argument in relation to how we make decisions about end of life. The premise was relatively clear: predictive models have a significant limitation in that they are bound by the decisions made in previous 'similar' cases. As such, the true potential outcomes are unknown. Indeed, would the authors consider the possibility of a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' scenario, whereby the previous decisions - particularly where the decision for comfort measures were taken - reinforce future decisions?
    The article was fascinating and well written, however the proposed mechanism for implementing the causal effect modelling was not clear, at least to the non-statistically informed clinician. The idea of running predictive hypothetical clinical trials is fascinating. The seeming potential to provide greater clarity for the most difficult decision in medicine is intriguing and, certainly this clinician, would be most appreciative of further exploration and explanation of the methods involved. Continuing a real-life scenario and discussing how close we are to such modelling being applicable to real cases - future studies - would also be much appreciated.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.