ArticlePloS one2020
Correlation of clinical decision-making with probability of disease: A web-based study among general practitioners.
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 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Empiric treatment and probability estimates before and after a decision support system intervention in a sore throat setting: a scenario-based survey study.BMC infectious diseases · 2025Article
- Decision threshold models in medical decision making: a scoping literature review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- Clinician Testing and Treatment Thresholds for Management of Urinary Tract Infection.Open forum infectious diseases · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical decision-making relies partly on the probability of disease. Current recommendations for the management of common diseases are based increasingly on scores that use arbitrary probability thresholds.
objectiveTo assess decision-making in pharyngitis and appendicitis using a set of clinical vignettes, and the extent to which management is congruent with the true probability of having the disease.
designWe developed twenty-four clinical vignettes with clinical presentations corresponding to specific probabilities of having disease defined by McIsaac (pharyngitis) or Alvarado (appendicitis) scores. Each participant answered four randomly selected web-based vignettes.
participantsGeneral practitioners (GP) working in primary care structures in Switzerland and the USA. MAIN MEASURES: A comparison between the GP's management decision according to the true probability of having the disease and to the GP's estimated probability, investigating the GP's ability to estimate probability of disease. KEY
resultsThe mean age of the GPs was 48 years (SD 12) and 66% were men. The correlation between the GP's clinical management decision based on the vignette and the recommendations was stronger for appendicitis than pharyngitis (kw = 0.74, 95% CI 0.70-0.78 vs. kw = 0.66, 95% CI 0.62-0.71). On the other hand, the association between the clinical management decision and the probability of disease estimated by GPs was more congruent with recommendations for pharyngitis than appendicitis (kw = 0.70, 95% CI 0.66-0.73 vs. 0.61, 95% CI 0.56-0.66). Only a minority of GPs correctly estimated the probability of disease (29% for appendicitis and 39% for pharyngitis).
conclusionsDespite the fact that general practitioners often misestimate the probability of disease, their management decisions are usually in line with recommendations. This means that they use other approaches, perhaps more subjective, to make decisions, such as clinical judgment or reasoning that integrate factors other than just the risk of the disease.
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.