Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19780850›Full record

ArticleHealth services research2009

Do physicians attend to base rates? Prevalence data and statistical discrimination in the diagnosis of coronary heart disease.

Nancy N Maserejian, Karen E Lutfey, John B McKinlay

Abstract readComment
In one paragraph

Article in Health services research, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Mind the Base Rate: an Exercise in Clinical Reasoning.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019
    Article
  3. When the Script Doesn't Fit: An Exercise in Clinical Reasoning.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Nancy N MaserejianNew England Research Institutes Inc., 9 Galen Street, Watertown, MA 02453, USA. nmaserejian@neriscience.com
Karen E Lutfey
John B McKinlay

Funding

Cognitive Basis of CHD Disparities: Factorial ExperimentR01HL079174 · NHLBI · NEW ENGLAND RESEARCH INSTITUTES, INC. · PI MCKINLAY, JOHN B · 2006 to 2008
$1.3M
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL079174
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo examine whether physicians attend to gender prevalence data in diagnostic decision making for coronary heart disease (CHD) and to test the hypothesis that previously reported gender differences in CHD diagnostic certainty are due to discrimination arising from reliance on prevalence data ("statistical discrimination"). DATA SOURCES: A vignette-based experiment of 256 randomly sampled primary care physicians conducted from 2006 to 2007. STUDY

designFactorial experiment. Physicians observed patient presentations of cardinal CHD symptoms, standardized across design factors (gender, race, age, socioeconomic status). DATA COLLECTION: Structured interview. PRINCIPAL

findingsMost physicians perceived the U.S. population CHD prevalence as higher in men (48.4 percent) or similar by gender (44.9 percent). For the observed patient, 52 percent did not change their CHD diagnostic certainty based on patient gender. Forty-eight percent of physicians were inconsistent in their population-level and individual-level CHD assessments. Physicians' assessments of CHD prevalence did not attenuate the observed gender effect in diagnostic certainty for the individual patient.

conclusionsGiven an adequate presentation of CHD symptoms, physicians may deviate from their prevalence data during diagnostic decision making. Physicians' priors on CHD prevalence did not explain the gender effect in CHD certainty. Future research should examine personal stereotypes as an explanation for gender differences.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPractice Patterns, Physicians'PrejudiceAgedCoronary DiseaseDecision MakingFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedSex FactorsUnited StatesVideotape Recording

Identifiers

PMID19780850
PMCPMC2796307

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.