We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Misleading one detail: a preventable mode of diagnostic error?
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 2009 October
RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Despite advances in our understanding of cognitive biases in clinical practice, little is known about correction or prevention of diagnostic errors. The presence of a single misleading detail may lead clinicians down a cognitive and actual path toward an incorrect diagnosis.
METHODS: In a large teaching hospital, we surveyed 51 attending doctors in internal medicine, presenting each with 10 clinical vignettes and soliciting their diagnosis of the condition leading to the presentation. Each of the 10 clinical cases included a single misleading detail.
RESULTS: This survey elicited a wrong diagnosis in 90% of cases, which was reduced to 30% when omitting the misleading detail from the vignette. Diagnostic accuracy did not improve by warning doctors about potentially misleading information. Asking doctors to identify a leading diagnostic detail and then to formulate an alternative diagnosis after omission of the detail, significantly reduced diagnostic error rate by nearly 50%.
CONCLUSION: Systematic re-examination of leading diagnostic clues may help to reduce errors in diagnosis.
METHODS: In a large teaching hospital, we surveyed 51 attending doctors in internal medicine, presenting each with 10 clinical vignettes and soliciting their diagnosis of the condition leading to the presentation. Each of the 10 clinical cases included a single misleading detail.
RESULTS: This survey elicited a wrong diagnosis in 90% of cases, which was reduced to 30% when omitting the misleading detail from the vignette. Diagnostic accuracy did not improve by warning doctors about potentially misleading information. Asking doctors to identify a leading diagnostic detail and then to formulate an alternative diagnosis after omission of the detail, significantly reduced diagnostic error rate by nearly 50%.
CONCLUSION: Systematic re-examination of leading diagnostic clues may help to reduce errors in diagnosis.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app