ArticleApplied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference2024
Exploring Intraoperative Cognitive Biases in Cardiac Surgery Teams.
Article in Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference, 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.
- Inequalities in Access to and Outcomes of Cardiac Surgery Among Patients with Mental Health Disorders.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Consensus on Key Attributes of Cardiac Surgeons' Intraoperative Performance.Journal of surgical education · 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
This study focuses on understanding the influence of cognitive biases in the intra-operative decision-making process within cardiac surgery teams, recognizing the complexity and high-stakes nature of such environments. We aimed to investigate the perceived prevalence and impact of cognitive biases among cardiac surgery teams, and how these biases may affect intraoperative decisions and patient safety and outcomes. A mixed-methods approach was utilized, combining quantitative ratings across 32 different cognitive biases (0 to 100 visual analogue scale), regarding their "likelihood of occurring" and "potential for patient harm" during the intraoperative phase of cardiac surgery. Based on these ratings, we collected qualitative insights on the most-rated cognitive biases from semi-structured interviews with surgeons, anaesthesiologists, and perfusionists who work in a cardiac operating room. A total of 16 participants, including cardiac surgery researchers and clinicians, took part in the study. We found a significant presence of cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias and overconfidence, which influenced decision-making processes and had the potential for patient harm. Of 32 cognitive biases, 6 were rated above the 75th percentile for both criteria (potential for patient harm, likelihood of occurring). Our preliminary findings provide a first step toward a deeper understanding of the complex cognitive mechanisms that underlie clinical reasoning and decision-making in the operating room. Future studies should further explore this topic, especially the relationship between the occurrence of intraoperative cognitive biases and postoperative surgical outcomes. Additionally, the impact of metacognition strategies (e.g. debiasing training) on reducing the impact of cognitive bias and improving intraoperative performance should also be investigated.
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.