ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2021
Advancing Diagnostic Safety Research: Results of a Systematic Research Priority Setting Exercise.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Priorities for improving paediatric diagnosis: findings from a modified Delphi study.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Diagnostic safety in the policy landscape - a comparative policy document analysis of Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand vs US health care and research policy.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Identifying opportunities for shared decision-making through patients' and physicians' perceptions on the diagnostic process: A qualitative analysis of malpractice claims in general practice.The European journal of general practice · 2025Observational
- Trends of diagnostic adverse events in hospital deaths: longitudinal analyses of four retrospective record review studies.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- From stable teamwork to dynamic teaming in the ambulatory care diagnostic process.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Challenges and Patient Safety: The Critical Role of Accuracy - A Systematic Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2025Review
- Evaluation of a Natural Language Processing Approach to Identify Diagnostic Errors and Analysis of Safety Learning System Case Review Data: Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Exploring Clinical Lessons Learned by Experienced Hospitalists from Diagnostic Errors and Successes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Behavioral sciences applied to acute care teams: a research agenda for the years ahead by a European research network.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Developing a Framework and Electronic Tool for Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study.JAMA network open · 2023Review
- Patient Identification of Diagnostic Safety Blindspots and Participation in "Good Catches" Through Shared Visit Notes.The Milbank quarterly · 2022Article
- A Research Agenda for Diagnostic Excellence in Critical Care Medicine.Critical care clinics · 2022Review
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors are a major source of preventable harm but the science of reducing them remains underdeveloped.
objectiveTo identify and prioritize research questions to advance the field of diagnostic safety in the next 5 years.
participantsNinety-seven researchers and 42 stakeholders were involved in the identification of the research priorities.
designWe used systematic prioritization methods based on the Child Health and Nutrition Research Initiative (CHNRI) methodology. We first invited a large international group of expert researchers in various disciplines to submit research questions while considering five prioritization criteria: (1) usefulness, (2) answerability, (3) effectiveness, (4) potential for translation, and (5) maximal potential for effect on diagnostic safety. After consolidation, these questions were prioritized at an in-person expert meeting in April 2019. Top-ranked questions were subsequently reprioritized through scoring on the five prioritization criteria using an online questionnaire. We also invited non-research stakeholders to assign weights to the five criteria and then used these weights to adjust the final prioritization score for each question. KEY
resultsOf the 207 invited researchers, 97 researchers responded and 78 submitted 333 research questions which were then consolidated. Expert meeting participants (n = 21) discussed questions in different breakout sessions and prioritized 50, which were subsequently reduced to the top 20 using the online questionnaire. The top 20 questions addressed mostly system factors (e.g., implementation and evaluation of information technologies), teamwork factors (e.g., role of nurses and other health professionals in the diagnostic process), and strategies to engage patients in the diagnostic process.
conclusionsTop research priorities for advancing diagnostic safety in the short-term include strengthening systems and teams and engaging patients to support diagnosis. High-priority areas identified using these systematic methods can inform an actionable research agenda for reducing preventable diagnostic harm.
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.