ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2024
Assessing the Revised Safer Dx Instrument
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe sought within an ambulatory safety study to understand if the Revised Safer Dx instrument may be helpful in identification of diagnostic missed opportunities in care of children with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
methodsWe reviewed two months of emergency department (ED) encounters for all patients at our tertiary care site with T1D and a sample of such encounters for patients with ASD over a 15-month period, and their pre-visit communication methods to better understand opportunities to improve diagnosis. We applied the Revised Safer Dx instrument to each diagnostic journey. We chose potentially preventable ED visits for hyperglycemia, diabetic ketoacidosis, and behavioral crises, and reviewed electronic health record data over the prior three months related to the illness that resulted in the ED visit.
resultsWe identified 63 T1D and 27 ASD ED visits. Using the Revised Safer Dx instrument, we did not identify any potentially missed opportunities to improve diagnosis in T1D. We found two potential missed opportunities (Safer Dx overall score of 5) in ASD, related to potential for ambulatory medical management to be improved. Over this period, 40 % of T1D and 52 % of ASD patients used communication prior to the ED visit.
conclusionsUsing the Revised Safer Dx instrument, we uncommonly identified missed opportunities to improve diagnosis in patients who presented to the ED with potentially preventable complications of their chronic diseases. Future researchers should consider prospectively collected data as well as development or adaptation of tools like the Safer Dx.
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.