Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2017 Apr 3;189(13):E484-E493.
doi: 10.1503/cmaj.160775.

The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

James Downar et al. CMAJ. .

Abstract

Background: The surprise question - "Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months?" - has been used to identify patients at high risk of death who might benefit from palliative care services. Our objective was to systematically review the performance characteristics of the surprise question in predicting death.

Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases from inception to 2016 to identify studies that prospectively screened patients with the surprise question and reported on death at 6 to 18 months. We constructed models of hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (sROCs) to determine prognostic performance.

Results: Sixteen studies (17 cohorts, 11 621 patients) met the selection criteria. For the outcome of death at 6 to 18 months, the pooled prognostic characteristics were sensitivity 67.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.7%-76.7%), specificity 80.2% (73.3%-85.6%), positive likelihood ratio 3.4 (95% CI 2.8-4.1), negative likelihood ratio 0.41 (95% CI 0.32-0.54), positive predictive value 37.1% (95% CI 30.2%-44.6%) and negative predictive value 93.1% (95% CI 91.0%-94.8%). The surprise question had worse discrimination in patients with noncancer illness (area under sROC curve 0.77 [95% CI 0.73-0.81]) than in patients with cancer (area under sROC curve 0.83 [95% CI 0.79-0.87; p = 0.02 for difference]). Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias, often because they had a low or unknown participation rate or had missing data.

Interpretation: The surprise question performs poorly to modestly as a predictive tool for death, with worse performance in noncancer illness. Further studies are needed to develop accurate tools to identify patients with palliative care needs and to assess the surprise question for this purpose.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1:
Figure 1:
Study selection for the systematic review. SQ = surprise question, SQ− = response to SQ is yes.
Figure 2:
Figure 2:
Summary receiver operating characteristic (sROC) curve. Each rectangle represents 1 study; the width of the rectangle is proportional to the standard error (SE) of the sensitivity, and the height is proportional to the SE of the specificity. The summary point is the meta-analytic sensitivity and specificity obtained from the hierarchical sROC model, and the dotted area is the 95% confidence interval region, based on the same model.

Comment in

References

    1. Moss AH, Ganjoo J, Sharma S, et al. Utility of the “surprise” question to identify dialysis patients with high mortality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3:1379–84. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Christakis NA, Lamont EB. Extent and determinants of error in doctors’ prognoses in terminally ill patients: prospective cohort study. BMJ 2000;320:469–72. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Billings JA, Bernacki R. Strategic targeting of advance care planning interventions: the Goldilocks phenomenon. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:620–4. - PubMed
    1. Spreeuwenberg C, Raats I, Teunissen S, et al. Development of a national care standard for palliative care in the Netherlands. Palliat Med 2014;28:634–5.
    1. Kersun L, Gyi L, Morrison WE. Training in difficult conversations: a national survey of pediatric hematology-oncology and pediatric critical care physicians. J Palliat Med 2009;12:525–30. - PubMed