ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2023
Optimizing measurement of misdiagnosis-related harms using symptom-disease pair analysis of diagnostic error (SPADE): comparison groups to maximize SPADE validity.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Just how many diagnostic errors and harms are out there, really? It depends on how you count.BMJ quality & safety · 2025Article
- Harbingers of sepsis misdiagnosis among pediatric emergency department patients.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Aspiring to clinical significance: Insights from developing and evaluating a machine learning model to predict emergency department return visit admissions.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Computable phenotype for diagnostic error: developing the data schema for application of symptom-disease pair analysis of diagnostic error (SPADE).Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2024Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Diagnostic errors in medicine represent a significant public health problem but continue to be challenging to measure accurately, reliably, and efficiently. The recently developed Symptom-Disease Pair Analysis of Diagnostic Error (SPADE) approach measures misdiagnosis related harms using electronic health records or administrative claims data. The approach is clinically valid, methodologically sound, statistically robust, and operationally viable without the requirement for manual chart review. This paper clarifies aspects of the SPADE analysis to assure that researchers apply this method to yield valid results with a particular emphasis on defining appropriate comparator groups and analytical strategies for balancing differences between these groups. We discuss four distinct types of comparators (intra-group and inter-group for both look-back and look-forward analyses), detailing the rationale for choosing one over the other and inferences that can be drawn from these comparative analyses. Our aim is that these additional analytical practices will improve the validity of SPADE and related approaches to quantify diagnostic error in medicine.
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.