Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2020
Trial report in BMJ quality & safety, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.
- Premature closure underlies bias in medical diagnosis in students: A randomised controlled experiment.Medical education · 2026Trial
- Natural frequency tree- versus conditional probability formula-based training for medical students' estimation of screening test predictive values: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Specific Disease Knowledge as Predictor of Susceptibility to Availability Bias in Diagnostic Reasoning: a Randomized Controlled Experiment.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Trial
- Efficacy of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Differential-Diagnosis List on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Large reasoning models as thinking machines for medicine.Nature biomedical engineering · 2026Review
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Bias Sensitivity in Diagnostic Decision-Making: Comparing ChatGPT with Residents.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Article
- Sum It Up for Me: A Novel Workshop in the Synthesis of Comprehensive Summary Statements for Pediatric Residents.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2025Article
- Preventable diagnostic errors of lower gastrointestinal perforation: a secondary analysis of a large-scale multicenter retrospective study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Misdiagnosis, Missed Diagnosis, and Delayed Diagnosis of Lupus: A Qualitative Study of Rheumatologists.Arthritis care & research · 2024Article
- Insights into diagnostic errors in endocrinology: a prospective, case-based, international study.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Deliberate practice of diagnostic clinical reasoning reveals low performance and improvement of diagnostic justification in pre-clerkship students.BMC medical education · 2023Observational
- Cognitive perspectives on maintaining physicians' medical expertise: II. Acquiring, maintaining, and updating cognitive skills.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2023Review
- Do malpractice claim clinical case vignettes enhance diagnostic accuracy and acceptance in clinical reasoning education during GP training?BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Deliberate reflection and clinical reasoning: Founding ideas and empirical findings.Medical education · 2023Article
- Behavioral biases and heuristics in perceptions of COVID-19 risks and prevention decisions.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2022Article
- The relationship between time to diagnose and diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents: a randomized experiment.BMC medical education · 2021Article
- The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2021Review
- How cognitive psychology changed the face of medical education research.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020Article
- A plea for contrastive instructions.Medical education · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors have often been attributed to biases in physicians' reasoning. Interventions to 'immunise' physicians against bias have focused on improving reasoning processes and have largely failed.
objectiveTo investigate the effect of increasing physicians' relevant knowledge on their susceptibility to availability bias. DESIGN, SETTINGS AND
participantsThree-phase multicentre randomised experiment with second-year internal medicine residents from eight teaching hospitals in Brazil.
interventionsImmunisation: Physicians diagnosed one of two sets of vignettes (either diseases associated with chronic diarrhoea or with jaundice) and compared/contrasted alternative diagnoses with feedback. Biasing phase (1 week later): Physicians were biased towards either inflammatory bowel disease or viral hepatitis. Diagnostic performance test: All physicians diagnosed three vignettes resembling inflammatory bowel disease, three resembling hepatitis (however, all with different diagnoses). Physicians who increased their knowledge of either chronic diarrhoea or jaundice 1 week earlier were expected to resist the bias attempt. MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Diagnostic accuracy, measured by test score (range 0-1), computed for subjected-to-bias and not-subjected-to-bias vignettes diagnosed by immunised and not-immunised physicians.
resultsNinety-one residents participated in the experiment. Diagnostic accuracy differed on subjected-to-bias vignettes, with immunised physicians performing better than non-immunised physicians (0.40 vs 0.24; difference in accuracy 0.16 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.27); p=0.004), but not on not-subjected-to-bias vignettes (0.36 vs 0.41; difference -0.05 (95% CI -0.17 to 0.08); p=0.45). Bias only hampered non-immunised physicians, who performed worse on subjected-to-bias than not-subjected-to-bias vignettes (difference -0.17 (95% CI -0.28 to -0.05); p=0.005); immunised physicians' accuracy did not differ (p=0.56).
conclusionsAn intervention directed at increasing knowledge of clinical findings that discriminate between similar-looking diseases decreased physicians' susceptibility to availability bias, reducing diagnostic errors, in a simulated setting. Future research needs to examine the degree to which the intervention benefits other disease clusters and performance in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 68745917.1.1001.0068.
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.