Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31988257›Full record

Trial reportBMJ quality & safety2020

Sílvia Mamede, Marco Antonio de Carvalho-Filho, Rosa Malena Delbone de Faria, Daniel Franci, Maria do Patrocinio Tenorio Nunes, Ligia Maria Cayres Ribeiro, Julia Biegelmeyer, Laura Zwaan, Henk G Schmidt

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
8.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Behavioral biases and heuristics in perceptions of COVID-19 risks and prevention decisions.Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis · 2022
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. How cognitive psychology changed the face of medical education research.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2020
    Article
  20. A plea for contrastive instructions.Medical education · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Sílvia MamedeInstitute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands s.mamede@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1187-2392
Marco Antonio de Carvalho-FilhoInternal Medicine, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Rosa Malena Delbone de FariaPropeudeutics, Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Daniel FranciInternal Medicine, State University of Campinas, Campinas, Brazil.
Maria do Patrocinio Tenorio NunesInternal Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Ligia Maria Cayres RibeiroDepartment of Medical Education Development, UNIFENAS Medical School, Belo Horizonte, Brazil.
Julia BiegelmeyerInternal Medicine, Universidade de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Laura ZwaanInstitute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Henk G SchmidtInstitute of Medical Education Research Rotterdam, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands.
Erasmus MC · NLUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) · BRUniversidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversity of Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PhysiciansAdultBiasDiagnostic ErrorsDiagnostic Tests, RoutineFemaleHumansMalecognitive biasesdiagnostic errorsmedical educationpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID31988257
PMCPMC7362774
OpenAlexW3003042643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.