ReviewMissouri medicine
A Critical Appraisal of AHRQ's "Diagnostic Errors" Report.
Review in Missouri medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Classification of Emergency Diagnosis-Sensitive Conditions Among Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Marginal Dispositions and Shared Decision-Making Among Older Adults in the ED: A Prospective Cohort Study.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2026Article
- Understanding Cervical Spine Injury Imaging Decision-Making in Pediatric Trauma Patients.Pediatrics open science · 2026Article
- Identifying diagnostic errors in the emergency department using trigger-based strategies.BMJ open quality · 2025Observational
- Implementation of Electronic Triggers to Identify Diagnostic Errors in Emergency Departments.JAMA internal medicine · 2025Article
- Frontline Providers' and Patients' Perspectives on Improving Diagnostic Safety in the Emergency Department: A Qualitative Study.Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) report "Diagnostic Errors in the Emergency Department" generated significant mass media interest with negative implications for the safety of contemporary emergency care. The assumptions and methodology underlying this report are problematic, while multiple ongoing efforts to improve the quality and quantity of diagnostic research are missed, neglected, or ignored. The AHRQ report identifies reasonable target diseases for targeting diagnostic quality improvement efforts, as well as viable methods by which to measure any initiatives impact on diagnostic error. We note additional opportunities to improve the status quo by funding emergency department-based diagnostic research and healthcare system-level patient safety research and highlighting innovative approaches to diagnostic science within emergency medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37091932PMC10121120W4366822712What 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.