Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27756369›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2016

Tracing the decision-making process of physicians with a Decision Process Matrix.

Daniel Hausmann, Cristina Zulian, Edouard Battegay, Lukas Zimmerli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Decision-Making During High-Risk Events: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of cognitive engineering and decision making · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Daniel HausmannDepartment of Psychology, Applied Social and Health Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14, Box 14, Zurich, 8050, Switzerland. d.hausmann@psychologie.uzh.ch.
Cristina ZulianDepartment of Psychology, Applied Social and Health Psychology, University of Zurich, Binzmuehlestrasse 14, Box 14, Zurich, 8050, Switzerland.
Edouard BattegayDivision of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lukas ZimmerliDivision of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Medical Informatics ApplicationsPhysiciansClinical Decision-MakingHumansConfidenceDecision process matrixInformation searchMedical decision-making

Identifiers

PMID27756369
PMCPMC5070075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.