ArticleBMJ open2020
Multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting: multicentre cross-sectional study in Japan.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. 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.
- Facilitating Trust Calibration in Artificial Intelligence-Driven Diagnostic Decision Support Systems for Determining Physicians' Diagnostic Accuracy: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Diagnostic Errors in Obstetric Morbidity and Mortality: Methods for and Challenges in Seeking Diagnostic Excellence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Effects of a 60-Minute Lecture About Diagnostic Errors for Medical Students: A Single-Center Interventional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is lack of evidence for the association between multimorbidity and diagnostic errors. Information on diagnostic errors from patients' perspectives is crucial to improve the diagnostic process. In this study, we aimed to investigate patient-reported diagnostic errors and to examine the relationship between multimorbidity and patient-reported diagnostic errors in the primary care setting.
designMulticentre cross-sectional study.
settingA primary care practice-based research network in Japan (25 primary care facilities).
participantsAdult outpatients filled out a standardised questionnaire. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: Patient-reported diagnostic errors.
resultsData collected from 1474 primary care outpatients were analysed. The number of participants who reported diagnostic errors was 57 (3.9%). Most of the missed diagnoses were common conditions in primary care, such as cancer, dermatitis and hypertension. After adjustment for possible confounders and clustering within facilities, multimorbidity was positively associated with patient-reported diagnostic errors (adjusted OR=1.83, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.31). The results of the sensitivity analysis were consistent with those of the primary analysis.
conclusionsThe present study showed a lower proportion of patients reporting experiences of diagnostic errors in primary care than those reported in previous studies in other countries. However, patients with multimorbidity are more likely to report diagnostic errors in primary care; thus, further research is necessary to improve the diagnostic process for patients with multimorbidity.
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.