SynthesisBMJ quality & safety2022
Effect on diagnostic accuracy of cognitive reasoning tools for the workplace setting: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ quality & safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an overview of reviews.Systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Large Language Model Influence on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- A Safety-II approach to learn from practice variation in the diagnostic process in the emergency department: an action research study.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2026Article
- The Development and Evaluation of a Clinical Reasoning Case for Second-Year Medical Students.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026Article
- Implementation of a bundle to improve diagnosis in hospitalized patients: lessons learned.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of computerised clinical decision support systems: an umbrella review protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Influence of a Large Language Model on Diagnostic Reasoning: A Randomized Clinical Vignette Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- AI-assisted human clinical reasoning in the ICU: beyond "to err is human".Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2024Article
- Intervention skills - a neglected field of research in medical education and beyond.GMS journal for medical education · 2024Article
- The PEST (Pathology, Epidemiology, Severity, Treatment) approach to optimizing antimicrobial therapy.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Diagnostic performance of generative artificial intelligences for a series of complex case reports.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPreventable diagnostic errors are a large burden on healthcare. Cognitive reasoning tools, that is, tools that aim to improve clinical reasoning, are commonly suggested interventions. However, quantitative estimates of tool effectiveness have been aggregated over both workplace-oriented and educational-oriented tools, leaving the impact of workplace-oriented cognitive reasoning tools alone unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to estimate the effect of cognitive reasoning tools on improving diagnostic performance among medical professionals and students, and to identify factors associated with larger improvements.
methodsControlled experimental studies that assessed whether cognitive reasoning tools improved the diagnostic accuracy of individual medical students or professionals in a workplace setting were included. Embase.com, Medline ALL via Ovid, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar were searched from inception to 15 October 2021, supplemented with handsearching. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model.
resultsThe literature search resulted in 4546 articles of which 29 studies with data from 2732 participants were included for meta-analysis. The pooled estimate showed considerable heterogeneity (I
conclusionCognitive reasoning tools resulted in small but clinically important improvements in diagnostic accuracy in medical students and professionals, although no factors could be distinguished that resulted in larger improvements. Cognitive reasoning tools could be routinely implemented to improve diagnosis in practice, but going forward, more large-scale studies and evaluations of these tools in practice are needed to determine how these tools can be effectively implemented. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186994.
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.