An ongoing trend in medicine toward evidence-based practice emphasizes efficiency and algorithmic approaches toward diagnosis and treatment. This approach has a number of potential benefits including cost-savings, standardization of practice, and improvement in quality of care.1 A proliferation of clinical scoring systems has in part been a consequence of this movement. These scoring systems are designed to inform clinical decision-making and may involve tools for diagnosis (eg, Wells Criteria), prognosis of disease (eg, the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score), and future risk of developing a disease (eg, Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease risk score).
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Challener DW, Prokop LJ, Abu-Saleh O. The Proliferation of Reports on Clinical Scoring Systems: Issues About Uptake and Clinical Utility. JAMA. 2019;321(24):2405–2406. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.5284
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: