ReviewWiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946)2017
[Cognitive errors in diagnostic decision making].
Review in Wiener medizinische Wochenschrift (1946), 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive Tunneling in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Critical Review of Implications for Clinical Practice and Mitigation Strategies.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- [Misdiagnoses in the diagnostics of the abdomen and pelvis].Radiologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Article
- Fever in the Returning Traveler.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Approximately 10-15% of our diagnostic decisions are faulty and may lead to unfavorable and dangerous outcomes, which could be avoided. These diagnostic errors are mainly caused by cognitive biases in the diagnostic reasoning process.Our medical diagnostic decision-making is based on intuitive "System 1" and analytical "System 2" diagnostic decision-making and can be deviated by unconscious cognitive biases.These deviations can be positively influenced on a systemic and an individual level. For the individual, metacognition (internal withdrawal from the decision-making process) and debiasing strategies, such as verification, falsification and rule out worst-case scenarios, can lead to improved diagnostic decisions making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28536918What 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.