ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022
Cognitive biases encountered by physicians in the emergency room.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 34 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-inflicted thoracoabdominal nail-gun injury presenting as STEMI: diagnostic challenges in a time-critical care pathway.Journal of surgical case reports · 2026Article
- Diagnostic capability of large language models in critically ill patients: a prospective single-centre study comparing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini with emergency physicians.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Cognitive Biases in Early Trauma Transfusions: Lessons From Three Rare Cases of Acute Hemolytic Reaction.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Concorde Syndrome in the Treatment of People with Cancer: Validation of a Measurement Instrument.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Words and Language Matter: Improving Older Person's Healthcare Outcomes Through Use of Age-Positive Language.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Review
- Understanding cognitive errors in clinical decision-making: a Q methodology approach.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Diagnostic errors in spinal metastases: a systematic review of contributing clinical and systemic factors.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026Review
- Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Delayed diagnosis of selected thoracic and mediastinal conditions in young adults: a focused narrative review of clinical pitfalls, cognitive biases, and system barriers.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Article
- Evaluating the o1 reasoning large language model for cognitive bias: a vignette study.Critical care (London, England) · 2025Article
- Simulated Emergency Room Sign-outs: What They Tell Us About Diagnostic Accuracy and Opportunities for Improvement.Journal of patient safety · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Impact on Pain Perceptions, Pain Intensity, and Physical Activity of a Mobile App to Empower Employees With Musculoskeletal Pain: Mixed Methods Pilot Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Acute patients discharged without an established diagnosis: risk of mortality and readmission of nonspecific diagnoses compared to disease-specific diagnoses.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors constitute an important medical safety problem that needs improvement, and their frequency and severity are high in emergency room settings. Previous studies have suggested that diagnostic errors occur in 0.6-12% of first-time patients in the emergency room and that one or more cognitive factors are involved in 96% of these cases. This study aimed to identify the types of cognitive biases experienced by physicians in emergency rooms in Japan.
methodsWe conducted a questionnaire survey using Nikkei Medical Online (Internet) from January 21 to January 31, 2019. Of the 159,519 physicians registered with Nikkei Medical Online when the survey was administered, those who volunteered their most memorable diagnostic error cases in the emergency room participated in the study. EZR was used for the statistical analyses.
resultsA total of 387 physicians were included. The most common cognitive biases were overconfidence (22.5%), confirmation (21.2%), availability (12.4%), and anchoring (11.4%). Of the error cases, the top five most common initial diagnoses were upper gastrointestinal disease (22.7%), trauma (14.7%), cardiovascular disease (10.9%), respiratory disease (7.5%), and primary headache (6.5%). The corresponding final diagnoses for these errors were intestinal obstruction or peritonitis (27.3%), overlooked traumas (47.4%), other cardiovascular diseases (66.7%), cardiovascular disease (41.4%), and stroke (80%), respectively.
conclusionsA comparison of the initial and final diagnoses of cases with diagnostic errors shows that there were more cases with diagnostic errors caused by overlooking another disease in the same organ or a disease in a closely related organ.
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.