ArticleArthritis care & research2024
Misdiagnosis, Missed Diagnosis, and Delayed Diagnosis of Lupus: A Qualitative Study of Rheumatologists.
Article in Arthritis care & research, 2024. 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.
- Effect of race and sex on lupus diagnosis in primary care: A randomized factorial survey study.PloS one · 2026Article
- The Misdiagnosis Tracker: Enhancing Diagnostic Reasoning Through Cognitive Bias Awareness and Error Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveDiagnostic errors in outpatient settings lead to significant consequences, especially in rare diseases such as systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). A recent vignette-based experimental study revealed that demographic factors influenced rheumatologists' diagnoses of SLE, raising concerns about potential diagnostic biases. We conducted a qualitative study to contextualize these results to generate insights about diagnostic challenges and biases, and root causes.
methodsWe conducted 41 semistructured interviews among US rheumatologists. Transcripts were independently coded by at least two coders using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach and thematic analysis. A team of four researchers reviewed and defined themes collectively, and also resolved any discrepancies.
resultsParticipants were 66% women, and 49% had more than10 years of postfellowship experience. Five major themes were generated, including receiving training through the lens of race or sex, the role of the documented epidemiology of SLE, pattern recognition and test-taking strategies, patient vignettes as an imperfect proxy for patient interactions, and varied consequences to patients from diagnostic bias. Participants noted that the consequences of diagnostic bias could include progressed disease from delayed diagnosis, unnecessary and inappropriate treatment due to missed diagnosis or misdiagnosis, and increased cost and harm.
conclusionThis study underscores the unique challenges of diagnosing SLE, with complex factors contributing to diagnosis bias and delays. Interventions during medical education could prevent downstream diagnostic biases. Future research should explore interventions to mitigate diagnostic bias and refine vignettes to better mirror real-world clinical scenarios. Understanding diagnostic bias in SLE is crucial for improving patient outcomes and refining medical training practices.
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.