ArticleFrontiers in public health2023
A novel approach for assessing bias during team-based clinical decision-making.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The Use of Botulinum Toxin Injections in Peripheral Neuropathic Pain: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety Outcomes.Pain research & management · 2026Pooled it
- Prenatal psychological distress and neurodevelopmental trajectories in the first 3 years: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- A Systematic Evaluation of Cohort Selection Criteria and Their Impact on Machine Learning Model Performance and Demographic Disparities in COVID-19 Outcomes: Cohort Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Implicit Bias in Health Professionals: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Towards a conceptualisation of collaborative decision-making within interprofessional collaborative practice: a concept analysis using scoping review methodology.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Article
- Implementation Science to Achieve Equity in Heart Failure Care: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation · 2024Review
- Bias in team decision-making for advanced heart failure therapies: model application.Journal of interprofessional careArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Many clinical processes include multidisciplinary group decision-making, yet few methods exist to evaluate the presence of implicit bias during this collective process. Implicit bias negatively impacts the equitable delivery of evidence-based interventions and ultimately patient outcomes. Since implicit bias can be difficult to assess, novel approaches are required to detect and analyze this elusive phenomenon. In this paper, we describe how the de Groot Critically Reflective Diagnoses Protocol (DCRDP) can be used as a data analysis tool to evaluate group dynamics as an essential foundation for exploring how interactions can bias collective clinical decision-making. The DCRDP includes 6 distinct criteria: challenging groupthink, critical opinion sharing, research utilization, openness to mistakes, asking and giving feedback, and experimentation. Based on the strength and frequency of codes in the form of exemplar quotes, each criterion was given a numerical score of 1-4 with 1 representing teams that are interactive, reflective, higher functioning, and more equitable. When applied as a coding scheme to transcripts of recorded decision-making meetings, the DCRDP was revealed as a practical tool for examining group decision-making bias. It can be adapted to a variety of clinical, educational, and other professional settings as an impetus for recognizing the presence of team-based bias, engaging in reflexivity, informing the design and testing of implementation strategies, and monitoring long-term outcomes to promote more equitable decision-making processes in healthcare.
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.