Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28784088›Full record

SynthesisBMC family practice2017

Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a systematic critical review.

Rahul Alam, Sudeh Cheraghi-Sohi, Maria Panagioti, Aneez Esmail, Stephen Campbell, Efharis Panagopoulou

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 101 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
101citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

101 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Characterising patient complaints in out-of-hours general practice: a retrospective cohort study in Ireland.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2018
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Culpable in the face of uncertainty? A perspective from military intelligence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2026
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Uncertainty in general practice: a myth of uniqueness?Family medicine and community health · 2026
    Review

41 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Rahul AlamNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (Greater Manchester PSTRC), The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Sudeh Cheraghi-SohiNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (Greater Manchester PSTRC), The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. Sudeh.Cheraghi-Sohi@manchester.ac.uk.
Maria PanagiotiNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (Greater Manchester PSTRC), The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Aneez EsmailNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (Greater Manchester PSTRC), The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Stephen CampbellNIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (Greater Manchester PSTRC), The University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK.
Efharis PanagopoulouMedical School, Department Social Medicine, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care.

methodsSixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.

resultsTen studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains.

conclusionsThere is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research.

trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555.

Indexed as

DiagnosisPrimary Health CareUncertaintyBurnout, ProfessionalCognitionEmotionsEthics, MedicalHumansPhysicians, Primary CareBurnoutDiagnosisPrimary medical careTrainingUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID28784088
PMCPMC5545872

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.