ArticleHepatology communications2025
Five essential features for adoption of clinical risk prediction tools: Insights from the VOCAL-Penn score.
Article in Hepatology communications, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough medical risk prediction tools are widely developed, few achieve sustained clinical adoption. In cirrhosis patients, surgical risk calculators have achieved broad utilization. We sought to identify key design and implementation factors that influence provider uptake of such tools, using the VOCAL-Penn score (VPS) as a case example.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study of 22 diverse clinicians who care for patients with cirrhosis. Semi-structured interviews were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to explore factors influencing the adoption of risk prediction tools. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using a combined grounded theory and deductive approach. Emergent themes were synthesized into a conceptual framework.
resultsFive recurrent themes emerged as central: efficiency, accessibility, transparency, accuracy, and generalizability. Clinicians emphasized the need for tools that are intuitive, require minimal inputs, and integrate seamlessly into existing workflows. Ensuring input variables were clinically meaningful and readily available was cited as critical to encouraging use. Transparency in model development was essential to building trust. Participants stressed the importance of comparative performance data relative to existing clinical standards, as well as published external validations, to support the tool's credibility. Finally, generalizability was key to equitable application across diverse patient populations.
conclusionsUsing the VPS as a grounding example, our findings identify 5 domains-efficiency, accessibility, transparency, accuracy, and generalizability-that inform the development and dissemination of future tools. By aligning tool design with real-world clinical needs, this framework may support broader adoption and more equitable implementation of medical risk prediction tools.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.