ArticleJournal of health and social behavior2012
Gendered uncertainty and variation in physicians' decisions for coronary heart disease: the double-edged sword of "atypical symptoms".
Article in Journal of health and social behavior, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unconscious bias in students of health professions - an experimental vignette study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Gender Differences in Clinical Practice Regarding Coronary Heart Disease: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Attachment as a Primary Mechanism in Physician Cognition and Bias During Complex Medical Cases: A Narrative Review.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025Review
- Unconscious Bias among Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Gender-specific uncertainties in the diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2017Article
- Preventing and Experiencing Ischemic Heart Disease as a Woman: State of the Science: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2016Review
- Article
- Does a Physician's Attitude toward a Patient with Mental Illness Affect Clinical Management of Diabetes? Results from a Mixed-Method Study.Health services research · 2015Article
- Gaps in preparedness of clergy and healthcare providers to address mental health needs of returning service members.Journal of religion and health · 2015Article
- Use of exercise tests in primary care: importance for referral decisions and possible bias in the decision process; a prospective observational study.BMC family practice · 2014Observational
- Physician styles of decision-making for a complex condition: Type 2 diabetes with co-morbid mental illness.European journal for person centered healthcareArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Nonmedical factors and diagnostic certainty contribute to variation in clinical decision making, but the process by which this occurs remains unclear. We examine how physicians' interpretations of patient sex-gender affect diagnostic certainty and, in turn, decision making for coronary heart disease. Data are from a factorial experiment of 256 physicians who viewed 1 of 16 video vignettes with different patient-actors presenting the same symptoms of coronary heart disease. Physician participants completed a structured interview and provided a narrative about their decision-making processes. Quantitative analysis showed that diagnostic uncertainty reduces the likelihood that physicians will order tests and medications appropriate for an urgent cardiac condition in particular. Qualitative analysis revealed that a subset of physicians applied knowledge that women have "atypical symptoms" as a generalization, which engendered uncertainty for some. Findings are discussed in relation to social-psychological processes that underlie clinical decision making and the social framing of medical knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.