ArticleCureus2021
Diagnostic Reboot: A Proposal to Improve Diagnostic Reasoning.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect on diagnostic accuracy of cognitive reasoning tools for the workplace setting: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ quality & safety · 2022Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Diagnostic errors contribute to the morbidity and mortality of patients. We created and utilized a novel diagnostic tool (Diagnostic Reboot) and assessed its practical efficacy in the inpatient setting for improving diagnostic outcomes. Design This was a prospective sequential controlled study that involved University Hospitalist Adult Teaching Service (UHATS) teams. Senior residents were instructed to use the Diagnostic Reboot (DxR) tool whenever a patient aged 19-99 years was identified who had an uncertain diagnosis 24 hours into their admission. Results Participating residents identified a total of 32 patients as meeting the criteria of uncertain diagnosis after at least 24 hours of hospitalization during the six months of the study period. Of these, seven were during the intervention (DxR) period. The leading diagnosis was excluded in 3/7 (43%) patients in the DxR period and 13/25 (52%) in the control period. A new leading diagnosis was made in 6/7 (86%) cases in the DxR period and in 13/25 (52%) people in the control period. A new diagnostic plan was made in 100% of the patients in the DxR group and in 80% of patients in the control group. A new consultation was requested in 4/7 (57%) patients in the DxR group and in 9/25 (36%) patients in the control group. The Residents spent an average of 20 minutes on the DxR tool. Conclusions This study demonstrated that the use of DxR may help to improve analytical thinking in residents. It may also play a role in improving outcomes in medically challenging cases, but the use of the tool during the study period was not sufficient to draw concrete conclusions. The primary barrier to the use of such a diagnostic aid was identified as time pressure on a busy hospitalist service.
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.