ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2016
Online public reactions to frequency of diagnostic errors in US outpatient care.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01710293 (Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Automated Point-of-Care Surveillance of Outpatient Delays in Cancer Diagnosis
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Online public response to emergency department diagnostic error report: A qualitative study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Reasoning in Cardiology: Past, Present and Future.Arquivos brasileiros de cardiologia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors pose a significant threat to patient safety but little is known about public perceptions of diagnostic errors. A study published in
methodsWe searched the World Wide Web for any news article reporting findings from the study. We then gathered all the online comments made in response to the news articles to evaluate public reaction to the newly reported diagnostic error frequency (n=241). Two coders conducted content analyses of the comments and an experienced qualitative researcher resolved differences.
resultsOverall, there were few comments made regarding the frequency of diagnostic errors. However, in response to the media coverage, 44 commenters shared personal experiences of diagnostic errors. Additionally, commentary centered on diagnosis-related quality of care as affected by two emergent categories: (1) US health care providers (n=79; 63 commenters) and (2) US health care reform-related policies, most commonly the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and insurance/reimbursement issues (n=62; 47 commenters).
conclusionThe public appears to have substantial concerns about the impact of the ACA and other reform initiatives on the diagnosis-related quality of care. However, policy discussions on diagnostic errors are largely absent from the current national conversation on improving quality and safety. Because outpatient diagnostic errors have emerged as a major safety concern, researchers and policymakers should consider evaluating the effects of policy and practice changes on diagnostic accuracy.
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.