Bakker, Jan

Prediction models aim to use available data to predict a health state or outcome that has not yet been observed. Prediction is primarily relevant to clinical practice, but is also used in research, and administration. While prediction modeling involves estimating the relationship between patient factors and outcomes, it is distinct from casual inference. Prediction modeling thus requires unique considerations for development, validation, and updating. This document represents an effort from editors at 31 respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine journals to consolidate contemporary best practices and recommendations related to prediction study design, conduct, and reporting. Herein, we address issues commonly encountered in submissions to our various journals. Key topics include considerations for selecting predictor variables, operationalizing variables, dealing with missing data, the importance of appropriate validation, model performance measures and their interpretation, and good reporting practices. Supplemental discussion covers emerging topics such as model fairness, competing risks, pitfalls of “modifiable risk factors”, measurement error, and risk for bias. This guidance is not meant to be overly prescriptive; we acknowledge that every study is different, and no set of rules will fit all cases. Additional best practices can be found in the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, to which we refer readers for further details.

Objective: Many patients are admitted to the ICU at or near the end of their lives. Consequently, the increasingly common debate regarding physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia holds implications for the practice of critical care medicine. The objective of this article is to explore core ethical issues related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia from the perspective of healthcare professionals and ethicists on both sides of the debate. Synthesis: We identified four issues highlighting the key areas of ethical tension central to evaluating physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in medical practice: 1) the benefit or harm of death itself, 2) the relationship between physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia and withholding or withdrawing life support, 3) the morality of a physician deliberately causing death, and 4) the management of conscientious objection related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia in the critical care setting. We present areas of common ground and important unresolved differences. Conclusions: We reached differing positions on the first three core ethical questions and achieved unanimity on how critical care clinicians should manage conscientious objections related to physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. The alternative positions presented in this article may serve to promote open and informed dialogue within the critical care community.