ArticleMedical education2025
Selective processing of clinical information related to correct and incorrect diagnoses: An eye-tracking experiment.
Article in Medical education, 2025. 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.
- Cognitive Tunneling in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Critical Review of Implications for Clinical Practice and Mitigation Strategies.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Selective processing of clinical information related to correct and incorrect diagnoses: An eye-tracking experiment.Medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDiagnostic errors are often attributed to erroneous selection and interpretation of patients' clinical information, due to either cognitive biases or knowledge deficits. However, whether the selection or processing of clinical information differs between correct and incorrect diagnoses in written clinical cases remains unclear. We hypothesised that residents would spend more time processing clinical information that was relevant to their final diagnosis, regardless of whether their diagnosis was correct.
methodsIn this within-subjects eye-tracking experiment, 19 internal or emergency medicine residents diagnosed 12 written cases. Half the cases contained a correct diagnostic suggestion and the others an incorrect suggestion. We measured how often (i.e. number of fixations) and how long (i.e. dwell time) residents attended to clinical information relevant for either suggestion. Additionally, we measured confidence and time to diagnose in each case.
resultsResidents looked longer and more often at clinical information relevant for the correct diagnostic suggestion if they received an incorrect suggestion and were able to revise this suggestion to the correct diagnosis (dwell time: M: 6.3 seconds, SD: 5.1 seconds; compared to an average of 4 seconds in other conditions; number of fixations: M: 25 fixations, SD: 20; compared to an average of 16-17 fixations). Accordingly, time to diagnose was longer in cases with an incorrect diagnostic suggestion (M: 86 seconds, SD: 47 seconds; compared to an average of 70 seconds in other conditions). Confidence (range: 64%-67%) did not differ depending on residents' accuracy or the diagnostic suggestion. DISCUSSION: Selectivity in information processing was not directly associated with an increase in diagnostic errors but rather seemed related to recognising and revising a biased suggestion in favour of the correct diagnosis. This could indicate an important role for case-specific knowledge in avoiding biases and diagnostic errors. Future research should examine information processing for other types of clinical information.
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.