ArticleAcademic pediatrics2018
Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Pediatrics: Project RedDE.
Article in Academic pediatrics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chronic mercury exposure and blood pressure in children and adolescents: a systematic review.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2019Pooled it
- Scoping review of patient and family engagement interventions in diagnosis: a paradox of too much, yet so little.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Beyond accuracy metrics: Toward responsible integration of large language models in pediatric diagnostic reasoning.Pediatric investigation · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic Errors in Obstetric Morbidity and Mortality: Methods for and Challenges in Seeking Diagnostic Excellence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Developing methods to identify resilience and improve communication about diagnosis in pediatric primary care.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Depression and its association with psychological factors among adolescents living with HIV in Southwestern Nigeria.BMC psychiatry · 2023Article
- Diagnosis Code and Health Care Utilization Patterns Associated With Diagnostic Uncertainty.Hospital pediatrics · 2022Article
- Management of high blood pressure in children: similarities and differences between US and European guidelines.Pediatric nephrology (Berlin, Germany) · 2019Review
- Contributing Factors for Pediatric Ambulatory Diagnostic Process Errors: Project RedDE.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Increasing Recognition and Diagnosis of Adolescent Depression: Project RedDE: A Cluster Randomized Trial.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Project RedDE: Cluster Randomized Trial to Reduce Missed or Delayed Abnormal Laboratory Value Actions.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Cluster Randomized Trial Reducing Missed Elevated Blood Pressure in Pediatric Primary Care: Project RedDE.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDiagnostic errors (DEs), which encompass failures of accuracy, timeliness, or patient communication, cause appreciable morbidity but are understudied in pediatrics. Pediatricians have expressed interest in reducing high-frequency/subacute DEs, but their epidemiology remains unknown. The objective of this study was to investigate the frequency of two high-frequency/subacute DEs and one missed opportunity for diagnosis (MOD) in primary care pediatrics.
methodsAs part of a national quality improvement collaborative, 25 primary care pediatric practices were randomized to collect 5 months of retrospective data on one DE or MOD: elevated blood pressure (BP) and abnormal laboratory values (DEs), or adolescent depression evaluation (MOD). Relationships between DE or MOD proportions and patient age, gender, and insurance status were explored with mixed-effects logistic regression models.
resultsDE or MOD rates in pediatric primary care were found to be 54% for patients with elevated BP (n = 389), 11% for patients with abnormal laboratory values (n = 381), and 62% for adolescents with an opportunity to evaluate for depression (n = 400). When examining the number of times a pediatrician may have recognized an abnormal condition but either knowingly or unknowingly did not act according to recommended guidelines, providers did not document recognition of an elevated BP in 51% of patients with elevated BP, and they did not document recognition of an abnormal laboratory value without a delay in 9% of patients with abnormal laboratory values.
conclusionsDEs and MODs occur at an appreciable frequency in pediatric primary care. These errors may contribute to care delays and patient harm.
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.