ArticleCureus2024
Effects of a 60-Minute Lecture About Diagnostic Errors for Medical Students: A Single-Center Interventional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A mixed methods study comparing video based and paper based diagnostic error education for medical students.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe danger of diagnostic errors exists in daily medical practice, and doctors are required to avoid such errors as much as possible. Although various factors, including cognitive, system-related, and patient-related factors, are involved in the occurrence of diagnostic errors, the percentage of doctors with insufficient medical knowledge among those factors is extremely low. Therefore, lectures on diagnostic errors might also be useful for medical students without experience working as doctors. This study investigated whether a 60-minute lecture on diagnostic errors would enable Japanese medical students to consider the factors involved in diagnostic errors and how their perceptions of diagnostic errors change. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This single-center interventional study was conducted in October 2022 among fourth-year medical students at the Faculty of Medicine, Saga University. A questionnaire survey was conducted before and immediately after the lecture to investigate changes in the perceptions of medical students regarding diagnostic errors. One mock case question was given on an exam the day after the lecture, and the number of responses to cognitive biases and system-related and patient-related factors involved in diagnostic errors were calculated.
resultsA total of 83 students were analyzed. After the lecture, medical students were significantly more aware of the existence of the concept of diagnostic error, the importance of learning about it, their willingness to continue learning about it, and their perception that learning about diagnostic errors improves their clinical skills. They were also significantly less likely to feel blame or shame over diagnostic errors. The mean numbers of responses per student for cognitive bias, system-related factors, and patient-related factors were 1.9, 3.4, and 0.9, respectively. The mean number of responses per student for all factors was 5.6.
conclusionA 60-minute lecture on diagnostic errors among medical students is beneficial because it significantly changes their perception of diagnostic errors. The results of the present study also suggest that lectures may enable Japanese medical students to consider the factors involved in diagnostic errors.
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.