ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019
Collective intelligence in medical decision-making: a systematic scoping review.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.
- g versus c: comparing individual and collective intelligence across two meta-analyses.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Pooled it
- Transforming Prenatal Care in a Highly Inbred Population: Impact of a Multidisciplinary Board.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Article
- CalDiff: Calibrating Uncertainty and Accessing Reliability of Diffusion Models for Trustworthy Lesion Segmentation.IEEE journal of biomedical and health informatics · 2026Article
- A scoping review of crowdsourcing and collective intelligence in oral healthcare.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- AI-Augmented Co-Design in Healthcare: Log-Based Markers of Teamwork Behaviors and Collective Intelligence Outcomes.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Robustness tests for biomedical foundation models should tailor to specifications.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Rural Longitudinal Neonatal Resuscitation Program Telesimulation Program (MOOSE: Maine Ongoing Outreach Simulation Education).American journal of perinatology · 2025Article
- Emerging trends in managed care pharmacy: A mixed-method study.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2025Article
- Explainable AI in medicine: challenges of integrating XAI into the future clinical routine.Frontiers in radiology · 2025Review
- Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Review
- Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Article
- Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Experimental evidence for structured information-sharing networks reducing medical errors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Harnessing the power of collective intelligence in dentistry: a pilot study in Victoria, Australia.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Determinants of Clinical Decision Making under Uncertainty in Dentistry: A Scoping Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Building public trust and confidence in secondary use of health data for healthcare improvement and research: a qualitative study pre-protocol.HRB open research · 2023Article
- Comparison of Diagnostic Recommendations from Individual Physicians versus the Collective Intelligence of Multiple Physicians in Ambulatory Cases Referred for Specialist Consultation.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022Article
- Studying human-AI collaboration protocols: the case of the Kasparov's law in radiological double reading.Health information science and systems · 2021Article
- Characterization and Comparison of the Utilization of Facebook Groups Between Public Medical Professionals and Technical Communities to Facilitate Idea Sharing and Crowdsourcing During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Cross-sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCollective intelligence, facilitated by information technology or manual techniques, refers to the collective insight of groups working on a task and has the potential to generate more accurate information or decisions than individuals can make alone. This concept is gaining traction in healthcare and has potential in enhancing diagnostic accuracy. We aim to characterize the current state of research with respect to collective intelligence in medical decision-making and describe a framework for diverse studies in this topic.
methodsFor this systematic scoping review, we conducted a systematic search for published literature using PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL on August 8, 2017. We included studies that combined the insights of two or more medical experts to make decisions related to patient care. Studies that examined medical decisions such as diagnosis, treatment, and management in the context of an actual or theoretical patient case were included. We include studies of complex medical decision-making rather than identification of a visual finding, as in radiology or pathology. We differentiate between medical decisions, in which synthesis of multiple types of information is required over time, and studies of radiological scans or pathological specimens, in which objective identification of a visual finding is performed. Two reviewers performed article screening, data extraction, and final inclusion for analysis.
resultsOf 3303 original articles, 15 were included. Each study examined the medical decisions of two or more individuals; however, studies were heterogeneous in their methods and outcomes. We present a framework to characterize these diverse studies, and future investigations, based on how they operationalize collective intelligence for medical decision-making: 1) how the initial decision task was completed (group vs. individual), 2) how opinions were synthesized (information technology vs. manual vs. in-person), and 3) the availability of collective intelligence to participants. DISCUSSION: Collective intelligence in medical decision-making is gaining popularity to advance medical decision-making and holds promise to improve patient outcomes. However, heterogeneous methods and outcomes make it difficult to assess the utility of collective intelligence approaches across settings and studies. A better understanding of collective intelligence and its applications to medicine may improve medical decision-making.
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.