SynthesisBMJ open2022
Checklists to reduce diagnostic error: a systematic review of the literature using a human factors framework.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- From image to clinical judgment: a randomized near-peer teaching trial on systematic chest radiograph interpretation.BMC medical education · 2026Trial
- Machine learning algorithms enhance the accuracy of radiographic diagnosis of dental caries: a comparative study.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2025Trial
- Effects of Use of Primary Care Checklists and of Extent of Clinical Experience on Performance in Interpreting Paediatric ECGs Linked to Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Post-operative tracheitis in the NICU: incidence and risk factors.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026Article
- A qualitative study of emergency physicians' perspective on the emergency journey of older patients.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Development and implementation of an etiology-based diagnostic framework for acute abdominal pain in emergency settings.Hereditas · 2025Article
- Minimising diagnostic error in paediatric critical care: a checklist approach.Sudanese journal of paediatrics · 2024Review
- Managing Interruptions to Improve Diagnostic Decision-Making: Strategies and Recommended Research Agenda.Journal of general internal medicine · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo apply a human factors framework to understand whether checklists reduce clinical diagnostic error have (1) gaps in composition; and (2) components that may be more likely to reduce errors.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus and Web of Science were searched through 15 February 2022. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any article that included a clinical checklist aimed at improving the diagnostic process. Checklists were defined as any structured guide intended to elicit additional thinking regarding diagnosis. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two authors independently reviewed and selected articles based on eligibility criteria. Each extracted unique checklist was independently characterised according to the well-established human factors framework: Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety 2.0 (SEIPS 2.0). If reported, checklist efficacy in reducing diagnostic error (eg, diagnostic accuracy, number of errors or any patient-related outcomes) was outlined. Risk of study bias was independently evaluated using standardised quality assessment tools in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
resultsA total of 30 articles containing 25 unique checklists were included. Checklists were characterised within the SEIPS 2.0 framework as follows: Work Systems subcomponents of Tasks (n=13), Persons (n=2) and Internal Environment (n=3); Processes subcomponents of Cognitive (n=20) and Social and Behavioural (n=2); and Outcomes subcomponents of Professional (n=2). Other subcomponents, such as External Environment or Patient outcomes, were not addressed. Fourteen checklists examined effect on diagnostic outcomes: seven demonstrated improvement, six were without improvement and one demonstrated mixed results. Importantly, Tasks-oriented studies more often demonstrated error reduction (n=5/7) than those addressing the Cognitive process (n=4/10).
conclusionsMost diagnostic checklists incorporated few human factors components. Checklists addressing the SEIPS 2.0 Tasks subcomponent were more often associated with a reduction in diagnostic errors. Studies examining less explored subcomponents and emphasis on Tasks, rather than the Cognitive subcomponents, may be warranted to prevent diagnostic errors.
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.