ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021
Diagnostic Errors Induced by a Wrong a Priori Diagnosis: A Prospective Randomized Simulator-Based Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of a provisional diagnosis on intern diagnostic reasoning: a mixed methods study.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Trial
- Impact of disclosing a working diagnosis during simulated patient handoff presentation in the emergency department: correctness matters.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Trial
- Diagnostic errors in patients admitted directly from new outpatient visits.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Diagnostic Accuracy of a Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an AI-Based Symptom Checker: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Does a suggested diagnosis in a general practitioners' referral question impact diagnostic reasoning: an experimental study.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Incidence of Diagnostic Errors Among Unexpectedly Hospitalized Patients Using an Automated Medical History-Taking System With a Differential Diagnosis Generator: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preventive strategies against diagnostic errors require the knowledge of underlying mechanisms. We examined the effects of a wrong a priori diagnosis on diagnostic accuracy of a focussed assessment in an acute myocardial infarction scenario. One-hundred-and-fifty-six medical students (cohort 1) were randomized to three study arms differing in the a priori diagnosis revealed: no diagnosis (control group), myocardial infarction (correct diagnosis group), and pulmonary embolism (wrong diagnosis group). Forty-four physicians (cohort 2) were randomized to the control group and the wrong diagnosis group. Primary endpoint was the participants' final presumptive diagnosis. Among students, the correct diagnosis of an acute myocardial infarction was made by 48/52 (92%) in the control group, 49/52 (94%) in the correct diagnosis group, and 14/52 (27%) in the wrong diagnosis group (
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.