ArticleAtencion primaria2020
[Effect of the use of heuristics on diagnostic error in Primary Care: Scoping review].
Article in Atencion primaria, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- ADHD overdiagnosis and the role of patient gender among Iranian psychiatrists.BMC psychiatry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the use of representativeness, availability, overconfidence, anchoring and adjustment heuristics in clinical practice, specifically in Primary Care setting.
designPanoramic review (scope review). DATA SOURCES: OvidMedline, Scopus, PsycoINFO, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases. Each one of the selected studies was reviewed applying TIDIER criteria (Template for Description of the Intervention and Replication) to facilitate their understanding and replicability. SELECTION OF STUDIES: A total of 48 studies were selected that analyzed availability heuristics (26), anchoring and adjustment (9), overconfidence (9) and representativeness (8).
resultsFrom the 48 studies selected, 26 analyzed availability heuristics, 9 anchoring and adjustment, 9 overconfidence; and 8 representativeness. The study population included physicians (35.4%), patients (27%), trainees (20.8%), nurses (14.5%) and students (14.5%). The studies conducted in clinical practice setting were 17 (35.4%). In 33 of the 48 studies (68,7%) it was observed heuristic use in the population studied. Heuristics use on diagnostic process was found in 27 studies (54.1%); 5 of them (18%) were carried out in clinical practice setting. Of the 48 studies, 6 (12,5%) were performed in Primary Care, 3 of which studied diagnostic process: only one of them analyzed the use of heuristics in clinical practice setting, without demonstrating bias as consequence of the use of heuristic.
conclusionThe evidence about heuristic use in diagnostic process on clinical practice setting is limited, especially in Primary Care.
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.