ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016
Tracing the decision-making process of physicians with a Decision Process Matrix.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors influencing the implementation of decision support systems for antibiotic prescription in hospitals: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Pooled it
- Distinguishing anchoring from confirmation bias in diagnostic vignette studies: methodological implications for clinical decision-making.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Influence of non-clinical factors on emergency department decision-making: a Delphi study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Consensus on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes for personalized clinical decision support in parkinson's disease.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
- Application of machine learning techniques in GlaucomAI system for glaucoma diagnosis and collaborative research support.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Community pharmacists' decision-making patterns in clinical prescription checking: A simulation-based study.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2025Article
- Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making · 2023Article
- Are more experienced clinicians better able to tolerate uncertainty and manage risks? A vignette study of doctors in three NHS emergency departments in England.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Article
- Article
- [Multimorbidity management and the physician's daily clinical dilemma].Der Internist · 2017Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-making processes in a medical setting are complex, dynamic and under time pressure, often with serious consequences for a patient's condition.
objectiveThe principal aim of the present study was to trace and map the individual diagnostic process of real medical cases using a Decision Process Matrix [DPM]).
methodsThe naturalistic decision-making process of 11 residents and a total of 55 medical cases were recorded in an emergency department, and a DPM was drawn up according to a semi-structured technique following four steps: 1) observing and recording relevant information throughout the entire diagnostic process, 2) assessing options in terms of suspected diagnoses, 3) drawing up an initial version of the DPM, and 4) verifying the DPM, while adding the confidence ratings.
resultsThe DPM comprised an average of 3.2 suspected diagnoses and 7.9 information units (cues). The following three-phase pattern could be observed: option generation, option verification, and final diagnosis determination. Residents strove for the highest possible level of confidence before making the final diagnoses (in two-thirds of the medical cases with a rating of practically certain) or excluding suspected diagnoses (with practically impossible in half of the cases). DISCUSSION: The following challenges have to be addressed in the future: real-time capturing of emerging suspected diagnoses in the memory of the physician, definition of meaningful information units, and a more contemporary measurement of confidence.
conclusionsDPM is a useful tool for tracing real and individual diagnostic processes. The methodological approach with DPM allows further investigations into the underlying cognitive diagnostic processes on a theoretical level and improvement of individual clinical reasoning skills in practice.
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.