ArticlePloS one2020
Outcomes of second opinions in general internal medicine.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- How prior spectacle prescriptions shape diagnostic behavior: evidence from a randomized field experiment on vision care in Western China.BMC health services research · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic discrepancies and clinical value of second medical opinions (SMO) for endometriosis: a nationwide study analysis.BMC women's health · 2025Observational
- Redundant laboratory testing on referral from general practice to the outpatient clinic: a post-hoc analysis.BJGP open · 2022Article
- Outcomes of General Internal Medicine Consultations for Diagnosis from Specialists in a Tertiary Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study.International journal of general medicine · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Effect of Consultation Referral from Gastroenterologists to Generalists in Patients with Undiagnosed Chronic Abdominal Pain: A Retrospective Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Predictive factors of diagnostic and therapeutic divergence in a nationwide cohort of patients seeking second medical opinion.BMC health services research · 2021Observational
- Training Internal Medicine Residents in Difficult Diagnosis: A Novel Diagnostic Second Opinion Clinic Experience.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo date, the outcomes of second opinions in internal medicine in terms of diagnostic yield and patient benefit have not been studied extensively. This retrospective study explores the outcomes of second opinions at a general internal medicine outpatient clinic in an academic hospital.
methodsA register of all patients referred to the general internal medicine outpatient clinic of the University Medical Center in Utrecht for a second opinion, was kept. All 173 patients referred between June 2016 and August 2018 were selected. Case records were analyzed for patient characteristics, referring doctor, chief complaint, performed investigations, follow-up time and, established diagnosis, additional diagnoses, initiated treatment and reported benefit.
resultsA new diagnosis was established in 13% of all patients. A new treatment was initiated in 56% of all patients: 91% and 51% of patients with and without a new diagnosis respectively (p < 0.001). Of all patients, 19% received an effective treatment (52% vs 14% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p < 0.001). Regardless of treatment, resolution or improvement of the chief complaint was achieved in 28% of all patients (52% vs 25% of patients with vs without a new diagnosis, p = 0.006). Regarding diagnostics, 23-33% of radiology, endoscopy and pathology tests performed during second opinion were a repetition of previously conducted investigations. Conventional blood tests were a repetition in 89% of cases. Median time to diagnosis was 64 days (IQR: 25-128 days) and median time to discharge was 75 days (IQR: 31-144 days).
conclusionSecond opinions in general internal medicine lead to the establishment of a new diagnosis in a small proportion of patients. However, the value of second opinions may not be limited to the establishment of diagnoses, as new treatments are often initiated and overall patients report improved symptomatology in 28% of cases.
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.