Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34291481›Full record

Trial reportMedical education2021

Differential diagnosis checklists reduce diagnostic error differentially: A randomised experiment.

Juliane E Kämmer, Stefan K Schauber, Stefanie C Hautz, Fabian Stroben, Wolf E Hautz

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Juliane E KämmerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6042-8453
Stefan K SchauberCentre for Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1832-2732
Stefanie C HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4715-8465
Fabian StrobenDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine (CBF), Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Wolf E HautzDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Inselspital University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2445-984X

Funding

Marie Skłodowska-Curie 894536Mundipharma Medical Basel, SwitzerlandSwiss National Sciences Foundations Research 187284
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWrong and missed diagnoses contribute substantially to medical error. Can a prompt to generate alternative diagnoses (prompt) or a differential diagnosis checklist (DDXC) increase diagnostic accuracy? How do these interventions affect the diagnostic process and self-monitoring?

methodsAdvanced medical students (N = 90) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions to complete six computer-based patient cases: group 1 (prompt) was instructed to write down all diagnoses they considered while acquiring diagnostic test results and to finally rank them. Groups 2 and 3 received the same instruction plus a list of 17 differential diagnoses for the chief complaint of the patient. For half of the cases, the DDXC contained the correct diagnosis (DDXC+), and for the other half, it did not (DDXC-; counterbalanced). Group 4 (control) was only instructed to indicate their final diagnosis. Mixed-effects models were used to analyse results.

resultsStudents using a DDXC that contained the correct diagnosis had better diagnostic accuracy, mean (standard deviation), 0.75 (0.44), compared to controls without a checklist, 0.49 (0.50), P < 0.001, but those using a DDXC that did not contain the correct diagnosis did slightly worse, 0.43 (0.50), P = 0.602. The number and relevance of diagnostic tests acquired were not affected by condition, nor was self-monitoring. However, participants spent more time on a case in the DDXC-, 4:20 min (2:36), P ≤ 0.001, and DDXC+ condition, 3:52 min (2:09), than in the control condition, 2:59 min (1:44), P ≤ 0.001. DISCUSSION: Being provided a list of possible diagnoses improves diagnostic accuracy compared with a prompt to create a differential diagnosis list, if the provided list contains the correct diagnosis. However, being provided a diagnosis list without the correct diagnosis did not improve and might have slightly reduced diagnostic accuracy. Interventions neither affected information gathering nor self-monitoring.

Indexed as

ChecklistStudents, MedicalDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ErrorsHumans

Identifiers

PMID34291481
PMCPMC9290564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.