Acute stroke care represents a challenge for decision makers. Decisions based on erroneous assessments may generate false expectations of patients and their family members, and potentially inappropriate medical advice. Game theory is the analysis of interactions between individuals to study how conflict and cooperation affect our decisions.
Aims
We reviewed principles of game theory that could be applied to medical decisions under uncertainty.
Summary
Medical decisions in acute stroke care are usually made under constrains: short period of time, with imperfect clinical information, limit understanding about patients and families’ values and beliefs. Game theory brings some strategies to help us manage complex medical situations under uncertainty. For example, it offers a different perspective by encouraging the consideration of different alternatives through the understanding of patients’ preferences and the careful evaluation of cognitive distortions when applying ‘real-world’ data. The stag-hunt game teaches us the importance of trust to strength cooperation for a successful patient–physician interaction that is beyond a good or poor clinical outcome.
Conclusions
The application of game theory to stroke care may improve our understanding of complex medical situations and help clinicians make practical decisions under uncertainty.
GlimcherPFehrE. Neuroeconomics: decision making and the brain, San Diego: Academic Press, 2014.
2.
CroskerryP. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med2003; 78: 775–780.
3.
PlattMLHuettelSA. Risky business: The neuroeconomics of decision making under uncertainty. Nat Neurosci2008; 11: 398–403.
4.
GageBFWatermanADShannonWBoechlerMRichMWRadfordMJ. Validation of clinical classification schemes for predicting stroke: results from the national registry of atrial fibrillation. JAMA2001; 285: 2864–2870.
5.
TverskyAKahnemanD. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science1974; 185: 1124–1131.
6.
HollowayRGArnoldRMCreutzfeldtCJLewisEFLutzBJMcCannRM. Palliative and end-of-life care in stroke: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke2014; 45: 1887–1916.
7.
SaposnikGJohnstonSC. Decision making in acute stroke care: learning from neuroeconomics, neuromarketing, and poker players. Stroke2014; 45: 2144–2150.
8.
John vonNMorgensternO. Theory of games and economic behavior (60th anniversary commemorative edition), NY, US: Princeton University Press, 2007.
9.
ArchettiMScheuringI. Review: game theory of public goods in one-shot social dilemmas without assortment. J Theor Biol2012; 299: 9–20.
10.
GlimcherPWDorrisMCBayerHM. Physiological utility theory and the neuroeconomics of choice. Games Econ Behav2005; 52: 213–256.
11.
GibbonsR. An introduction to applicable game theory. J Econ Perspect1997; 11: 127–149.
12.
BernoulliD. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica1954; 22: 23–36.
13.
Von NeumannJMorgensternO. Theory of games and economic behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944.
14.
SamuelsonPA. A note on the pure theory of consumer’s behaviour. Economica1938; 5: 61–71.
15.
RangelACamererCMontaguePR. A framework for studying the neurobiology of value-based decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci2008; 9: 545–556.
16.
RuffCCFehrE. The neurobiology of rewards and values in social decision making. Nat Rev Neurosci2014; 15: 549–562.
17.
KahemanD. Thinking, fast and slow, New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2011.
18.
DixitAKNalebuffBJ. The art of strategy: a game theorist’s guide to success in business and life, NY, US: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010.
19.
DixitAKSkeathSReileyD. Games of strategy, NY, US: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2015.
20.
NashJ. Non-cooperative games. Ann Math1951; 54: 286–295.
21.
PoundstoneW. Prisoner's dilemma: John von neumann, game theory and the puzzle of the bomb, NY, US: Doubleday, 1992.
22.
EngemannDABzdokDEickhoffSBVogeleyKSchilbachL. Games people play-toward an enactive view of cooperation in social neuroscience. Front Hum Neurosci2012; 6: 148.
23.
GoldsteinLBBushnellCDAdamsRJAppelLJBraunLTChaturvediS. Guidelines for the primary prevention of stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American heart association/American stroke association. Stroke2011; 42: 517–584.
24.
SaposnikGFangJKapralMKTuJVMamdaniMAustinP. The iscore predicts effectiveness of thrombolytic therapy for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke2012; 43: 1315–1322.
25.
KamelHPatelNRaoVACullenSPFaigelesBSSmithWS. The totaled health risks in vascular events (thrive) score predicts ischemic stroke outcomes independent of thrombolytic therapy in the NINDs tPA trial. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2013; 22: 1111–1116.
26.
SaposnikGReevesMJJohnstonSCBathPMOvbiageleB. Predicting clinical outcomes after thrombolysis using the iscore: results from the virtual international stroke trials archive. Stroke2013; 44: 2755–2759.
27.
SaposnikGDemchukATuJVJohnstonSC. The iscore predicts efficacy and risk of bleeding in the national institute of neurological disorders and stroke tissue plasminogen activator stroke trial. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis2013; 22: 876–882.
28.
Saposnik G, Lebovic G, Demchuk A, Levy EI, Ovbiagele B, Goyal M, et al. Added benefit of stent retriever technology for acute ischemic stroke: a pooled analysis of the NINDs tPA, swift and star trials. Neurosurgery 2015; 77: 454–461.
29.
GriffinDBuehlerR. Frequency, probability, and prediction: easy solutions to cognitive illusions?Cognit Psychol1999; 38: 48–78.
30.
ArielyD. Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions, New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, 2008.
31.
GoyalMDemchukAMMenonBKEesaMRempelJLThorntonJ. Randomized assessment of rapid endovascular treatment of ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med2015; 372: 1019–1030.
32.
BerkhemerOAFransenPSBeumerDvan den BergLALingsmaHFYooAJ. A randomized trial of intraarterial treatment for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med2015; 372: 11–20.
33.
KrumholzHM. Outcomes research: myths and realities. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2009; 2: 1–3.
34.
LinGAFagerlinA. Shared decision making: state of the science. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2014; 7: 328–334.
VostroknutovAToblerPNRustichiniA. Causes of social reward differences encoded in human brain. J Neurophysiol2012; 107: 1403–1412.
37.
ChisholmCDCollisonEKNelsonDRCordellWH. Emergency department workplace interruptions: are emergency physicians “interrupt-driven” and “multitasking”?Acad Emerg Med2000; 7: 1239–1243.
38.
Balami, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of endovascular thrombectomy compared with best medical treatment for acute ischemic stroke. Int J Stroke 2015; 10: 1168–1178.
39.
Yarbrough CK, et al. Endovascular thrombectomy for anterior circulation stroke: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke 2015; 46: 3177–83.
40.
Badhiwala, et al. Endovascular Thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2015; 314: 1832–1843.
41.
Bush CK, et al. Endovascular treatment with stent-retriever devices for acute ischemic stroke: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0147287.
