ArticleThe Annals of thoracic surgery2018
Do Estimates of Treatment Risk Based on Clinical Vignettes Differ by Physician Gender?
Article in The Annals of thoracic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physician gender as a source of implicit bias affecting clinical decision-making processes: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Physician Gender Differences in Processing Surgical Risk Features in Videos of Standardized Patients.The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinical vignettes are frequently used as instructional and evaluative instruments for physicians. Physicians' gender is a source of unconscious bias in treatment recommendations. This study assessed whether interpretation of information in clinical vignettes differed by physicians' gender as a possible source of unconscious bias.
methodsThoracic surgeons and physicians in cardiothoracic surgical training were asked to provide estimates of major complication rates for lung resection on the basis of anonymized clinical vignettes of patients undergoing lung resection. Vignettes were categorized as low, average, and high risk by using a sum of Charlson Comorbidity Index (possible range, 0 to 37) and a combined physiologic score, EVAD (forced expiratory volume in 1 second, diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide, age; possible range, 0 to 12); participants were not aware of the risk scores or vignette categories. Generalized estimating equation linear regression models were fit with risk scores treated as a continuous independent variable.
resultsA total of 247 physicians (105 practicing surgeons, 142 trainees; 203 men, 44 women) participated in one or more of the studies. Nearly all (103; 98%) of the practicing surgeons rated themselves as competent or expert in lung resection compared with 77 (54%) of the trainees (p < 0.001). Participants' complication estimates mirrored both vignette risk category and combined risk score. There was no significant difference between men and women physicians in their estimates of complication rates.
conclusionsUnconscious bias related to physicians' gender is not associated with differential use of information in clinical vignettes. Any possible bias may arise from face-to-face interactions with patients. Research into physicians' and patients' gender differences during such interactions is warranted.
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.