ArticleBMJ quality & safety2024
Burden of serious harms from diagnostic error in the USA.
Article in BMJ quality & safety, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 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
86 citing papers in PubMed.
- Identification of diagnostic discrepancies as a quality assurance measure in emergency medicine - a validation study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2026Trial
- Effects of Prior Diagnosis on Second Opinions and Pathologist Viewing Behaviors: Results from a Randomized Trial in Breast Pathology.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026Trial
- A mixed methods study comparing video based and paper based diagnostic error education for medical students.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Classification of Emergency Diagnosis-Sensitive Conditions Among Medicare Beneficiaries.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Discrepancies Between Emergency Department Assessment and Internal Medicine Discharge Diagnosis: A Prospective Observational Study in a Swiss Tertiary Hospital.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Conditional Perplexity Scoring for Large Language Model-Generated Differential Diagnoses in Case Reports: Preliminary Computational Evaluation.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Special article-EchoPeer: a standardized framework for assessing echocardiography reports in the era of artificial intelligence: a recommendation from the Korean Society of Echocardiography AI and Future Strategy Committee.Journal of cardiovascular imaging · 2026Review
- Evaluation of a Generative Medical Event Foundation Model for Predicting Post-Discharge Trajectories in Emergency Department Abdominal Pain.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Review
- Incidence, contributing factors, and predictors of diagnostic errors in medical inpatients: A retrospective cohort study.Journal of hospital medicine · 2026Article
- Reframing Patient and Parental Experience in Pediatric Healthcare: Medical Gaslighting as a Diagnostic Safety Vulnerability.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Malpractice fear and career decision regret among resident physicians: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Scoping review of patient and family engagement interventions in diagnosis: a paradox of too much, yet so little.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Priorities for improving paediatric diagnosis: findings from a modified Delphi study.BMJ quality & safety · 2026Article
- Delirium-related adverse events and malpractice claims in Japan: an exploratory comparative analysis of national adverse event data and closed claims.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- The evolving physician-AI relationship: a five-tier framework for integrating intelligent systems into clinical practice and medical education.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Improving Diagnosis: Evaluation of Diagnostic Experiences Classified as Problems, Mistakes, or Both by Patients and Care Partners From a Nationally Representative Survey.Medical care · 2026Article
- Atypical Presentations at Risk for Diagnostic Errors in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2026Article
- The effect of medical explanations from large language models on diagnostic accuracy in radiology.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Perception of Patient Safety Culture Among Healthcare Practitioners in Dammam and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors cause substantial preventable harms worldwide, but rigorous estimates for total burden are lacking. We previously estimated diagnostic error and serious harm rates for key dangerous diseases in major disease categories and validated plausible ranges using clinical experts.
objectiveWe sought to estimate the annual US burden of serious misdiagnosis-related harms (permanent morbidity, mortality) by combining prior results with rigorous estimates of disease incidence.
methodsCross-sectional analysis of US-based nationally representative observational data. We estimated annual incident vascular events and infections from 21.5 million (M) sampled US hospital discharges (2012-2014). Annual new cancers were taken from US-based registries (2014). Years were selected for coding consistency with prior literature. Disease-specific incidences for 15 major vascular events, infections and cancers ('Big Three' categories) were multiplied by literature-based rates to derive diagnostic errors and serious harms. We calculated uncertainty estimates using Monte Carlo simulations. Validity checks included sensitivity analyses and comparison with prior published estimates.
resultsAnnual US incidence was 6.0 M vascular events, 6.2 M infections and 1.5 M cancers. Per 'Big Three' dangerous disease case, weighted mean error and serious harm rates were 11.1% and 4.4%, respectively. Extrapolating to all diseases (including non-'Big Three' dangerous disease categories), we estimated total serious harms annually in the USA to be 795 000 (plausible range 598 000-1 023 000). Sensitivity analyses using more conservative assumptions estimated 549 000 serious harms. Results were compatible with setting-specific serious harm estimates from inpatient, emergency department and ambulatory care. The 15 dangerous diseases accounted for 50.7% of total serious harms and the top 5 (stroke, sepsis, pneumonia, venous thromboembolism and lung cancer) accounted for 38.7%.
conclusionAn estimated 795 000 Americans become permanently disabled or die annually across care settings because dangerous diseases are misdiagnosed. Just 15 diseases account for about half of all serious harms, so the problem may be more tractable than previously imagined.
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.