ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
When would I be surprised? Variability in predicted probability of survival for being "surprised" and "not surprised" to the surprise question.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe surprise question is commonly used in clinical practice; however, the variability in how "surprise" is defined is unclear. We examined the variability in the predicted probability of survival for being "surprised" and "not surprised" among palliative care physicians across seven timeframes.
methodsPalliative care specialists completed the surprise question for 3 days, 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, 3 months, and 6 months for patients with advanced cancer at an outpatient clinic and concurrently predicted the probability of survival (0-100%). The primary outcome, coefficient of variation (CV) for the predicted probability of survival, was computed for "surprised" and "not surprised" answers for each physician and each timeframe. A mixed-effect logistic regression assessed the probability threshold for being "surprised."
resultsTwenty physicians provided 3024 survival estimates for 216 patients (mean age 61, 50% female). When "surprised," physicians consistently predicted a probability of survival > 50%, with low variation among physicians (mean CV 6-23%) and across timeframes (mean CV 5-20%). In contrast, physicians who answered "not surprised" predicted a probability of survival from 2 to 100%, with high variation among physicians (mean CV 15-83%) and across timeframes (mean CV 22-69%). Variability increased with longer timeframes. The probability of survival thresholds for being "surprised" were ≥ 74%, ≥ 62%, ≥ 68%, ≥ 83%, and ≥ 84% for 1 week, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months, respectively.
conclusionWe found low variability for predicted probability of survival when clinicians were "surprised" but high variability when they were "not surprised."
Indexed as
Identifiers
40711595What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.