ArticleBMJ open2019
Diagnostic strategies in general practice and the emergency department: a comparative qualitative analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. 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.
- Time to diagnosis for a rare disease: managing medical uncertainty. A qualitative study.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
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
objectiveWe sought to explore differences and commonalities between diagnostic strategies used by clinicians in general practice and the emergency department.
designQualitative study. SETTINGS: We videotaped 282 consultations of 12 general practitioners (GPs) in Germany, irrespective of presenting complaint or final diagnosis. Reflective interviews were performed after each consultation. In addition, 171 consultations of 16 emergency physicians (EPs) based at two tertiary care hospitals in the Midwest of the USA were observed, and their conversations recorded. Recordings of consultations and GP interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a coding system that was based on published literature and systematically checked for reliability.
resultsEPs more often considered acute and severe conditions, even if pretest probabilities were low. In contrast, GPs more often involved their patients in the decision-making process and provided assurance concerning their complaints. To focus their workup, EPs used a more directive style of interviewing including a high proportion of routine questions and rarely used open questions or active listening.
conclusionsStrategies used by physicians in both settings seem to be well adapted to their respective environments. Whereas the physician-led diagnostic process in the emergency department is well suited to rule out life-threating disease, diagnosis and appropriate treatment of everyday problems may require a more patient-centred style.
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.