ArticleFrontiers in medicine2023
Family physicians overestimate diagnosis probabilities regardless of the test results.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: As useful tools for clinical decision-making, diagnostic tests require careful interpretation in order to prevent underdiagnosis, overdiagnosis or misdiagnosis. The aim of this study was to explore primary care practitioners' understanding and interpretation of the probability of disease before and after test results for six common clinical scenarios. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted with 414 family physicians who were working at primary care in Istanbul via face-to-face interviews held between November 2021 and March 2022. The participants were asked to estimate the probability of diagnosis in six clinical scenarios provided to them. Clinical scenarios were about three cancer screening cases (breast, cervical and colorectal), and three infectious disease cases (pneumonia, urinary tract infection, and COVID-19). For each scenario participants estimated the probability of the diagnosis before application of a diagnostic test, after a positive test result, and after a negative test result. Their estimates were compared with the true answers derived from relevant guidelines. Results: For all scenarios, physicians' estimates were significantly higher than the scientific evidence range. The minimum overestimation was positive test result for COVID-19 and maximum was pre-test case for cervical cancer. In the hypothetical control question for prevalence and test accuracy, physicians estimated disease probability as 95.0% for a positive test result and 5.0% for a negative test result while the correct answers were 2.0 and 0%, respectively ( Discussion: Comparing the scientific evidence, overestimation in all diagnostic scenarios, regardless of if the disease is an acute infection or a cancer, may indicate that the probabilistic approach is not conducted by the family physicians. To prevent inaccurate interpretation of the tests that may lead to incorrect or unnecessary treatments with adverse consequences, evidence-based decision-making capacity must be strengthened.
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.