SynthesisClinical medicine (London, England)2019
Real time self-rating of decision certainty by clinicians: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of digitally acquired peer diagnostic input on diagnostic confidence in outpatient cases: A pragmatic randomized trial.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Trial
- Development of a Novel Low-Cost Knee Brace to Quantify Human Knee Function During Dynamic Tasks: A Feasibility Study from the North-West Province.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The diagnostic certainty levels of junior clinicians: A retrospective cohort study.Health information management : journal of the Health Information Management Association of Australia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BackgroundWe sought to establish to what extent decision certainty has been measured in real time and whether high or low levels of certainty correlate with clinical outcomes.MethodsOur pre-specified study protocol is published on PROSPERO, CRD42019128112. We identified prospective studies from Medline, Embase and PsycINFO up to February 2019 that measured real time self-rating of the certainty of a medical decision by a clinician.FindingsNine studies were included and all were generally at high risk of bias. Only one study assessed long-term clinical outcomes: patients rated with high diagnostic uncertainty for heart failure had longer length of stay, increased mortality and higher readmission rates at 1 year than those rated with diagnostic certainty. One other study demonstrated the danger of extreme diagnostic confidence - 7% of cases (24/341) labelled as having either 0% or 100% diagnostic likelihood of heart failure were made in error.ConclusionsThe literature on real time self-rated certainty of clinician decisions is sparse and only relates to diagnostic decisions. Further prospective research with a view to generating hypotheses for testable interventions that can better calibrate clinician certainty with accuracy of decision making could be valuable in reducing diagnostic error and improving outcomes.
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.