The objective of clinical prediction rules is to reduce the uncertainty inherent in medical practice by defining how to use clinical findings to make predictions. Clinical prediction rules are derived from systematic clinical observations. They can help physicians identify patients who require diagnostic tests, treatment, or hospitalization. Before adopting a prediction rule, clinicians must evaluate its applicability to their patients. We describe methodological standards that can be used to decide whether a prediction rule is suitable for adoption in a clinician's practice. We applied these standards to 33 reports of prediction rules; 42 per cent of the reports contained an adequate description of the prediction rules, the patients, and the clinical setting. The misclassification rate of the rule was measured in only 34 per cent of reports, and the effects of the rule on patient care were described in only 6 per cent of reports. If the objectives of clinical prediction rules are to be fully achieved, authors and readers need to pay close attention to basic principles of study design.

The prevention or correction of hypoglycemia is the result of both dissipation of insulin and activation of counterregulatory systems. In the models studied to date, glucagon and epinephrine have been shown to be the key counterregulatory factors; the potential roles of other hormones, neural factors, or substrate mechanisms in other models and during more gradual recovery from hypoglycemia remain to be defined. Deficient glucagon responses to decrements in plasma glucose, which are common in patients with IDDM and occur in some patients with NIDDM, result in altered counterregulation. But counterregulation is generally adequate, because epinephrine compensates for it. Defective glucose counterregulation due to combined deficiencies of glucagon and epinephrine secretory responses occurs in many patients, typically those with longstanding diabetes, and must be added to the list of factors known to increase the risk of hypoglycemia, at least during intensive therapy. From the material reviewed, it should be apparent that much has been learned about glucose counterregulation. It should be equally clear that much remains to be learned. Among the many possibilities, we consider four worthy of emphasis. First of all, we need to examine the physiology and pathophysiology of glucose counterregulation in additional models (e.g., during exercise) and over longer periods. Secondly, we need to determine whether central nervous system adaptation to antecedent glycemia occurs and, if so, identify its mechanisms. Thirdly, we need to develop better methods of insulin delivery or learn to correct or compensate for defective counterregulatory systems, if we are to achieve euglycemia safely in diabetic patients with defective glucose counterregulation. Finally, we need to know whether effective control of diabetes mellitus prevents development of defective glucose counterregulation.

Pain is one of the most feared consequences of cancer. Control of pain from cancer should be possible with the approaches discussed above. Changing attitudes toward the effective use of narcotic analgesics, the development of novel routes and methods of administration, and a clinical approach based on scientific principles and humane care offer the promise of improved management of pain in patients with cancer.