ArticleMayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes2019
Improving Diagnostic Fidelity: An Approach to Standardizing the Process in Patients With Emerging Critical Illness.
Article in Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incidence, contributing factors, and predictors of diagnostic errors in medical inpatients: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Barriers to Leveraging Patient Safety Event Reviews for Organizational Learning, Improvement, and Diagnostic Error Reduction: Results of a Single Academic Center Survey Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- Analysis of Variation Between Diagnosis at Admission vs Discharge and Clinical Outcomes Among Adults With Possible Bacteremia.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Feasibility and Reliability Testing of Manual Electronic Health Record Reviews as a Tool for Timely Identification of Diagnostic Error in Patients at Risk.Applied clinical informatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo reliably improve diagnostic fidelity and identify delays using a standardized approach applied to the electronic medical records of patients with emerging critical illness. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis retrospective observational study at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, conducted June 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, used a standard operating procedure applied to electronic medical records to identify variations in diagnostic fidelity and/or delay in adult patients with a rapid response team evaluation, at risk for critical illness. Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified predictors and compared outcomes for those with and without varying diagnostic fidelity and/or delay.
resultsThe sample included 130 patients. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range, 56-76 years), and 47.0% (52 of 130) were women. Clinically significant diagnostic error or delay was agreed in 23 (17.7%) patients (κ=0.57; 95% CI, 0.40-0.74). Median age was 65.4 years (interquartile range, 60.3-74.8) and 9 of the 23 (30.1%) were female. Of those with diagnostic error or delay, 60.9% (14 of 23) died in the hospital compared with 19.6% (21 of 107) without;
conclusionDiagnostic errors or delays can be reliably identified and are associated with higher comorbidity burden and increased mortality.
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.