Trial reportDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025
Impact of disclosing a working diagnosis during simulated patient handoff presentation in the emergency department: correctness matters.
Trial report in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesDiagnostic errors in emergency departments (ED) are a significant concern and exacerbated by cognitive biases during patient handoffs. The timing and accuracy of disclosing working diagnoses during these handoffs potentially influence diagnostic decisions, yet empirical evidence remains limited. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis parallel, quasi-experimental study involved 40 interns from Japanese teaching hospitals, randomly assigned to control or intervention groups. Each group reviewed eight audio-recorded patient handoff scenarios where working diagnoses were disclosed at the start (control) or end (intervention). Four cases presented correct diagnoses, while four featured incorrect ones. The main measure was diagnostic error rate, calculated as the proportion of incorrect post-handoff responses to total questions asked.
resultsNo significant difference in diagnostic error rates emerged between the control (39.4 %, 63/160) and intervention (38.8 %, 62/160) groups (point estimate -0.6 %; 95 % CI: -11.3-10.1 %, p=0.91). However, a substantial difference was evident between diagnostic errors after correct (20.6 %, 33/160) and incorrect (57.5 %, 92/160) working diagnoses presented (point estimate: 36.9 %; 95 % CI: 27.0-46.8 %, p<0.001). Diagnostic momentum accounted for 52 % (48/92) of errors under incorrect diagnoses.
conclusionsWhile the timing of working diagnosis disclosure did not significantly alter diagnostic accuracy during ED handoffs, exposure to incorrect diagnoses markedly increased error rates. These findings underscore the imperative to refine diagnostic skills and reconsider ED handoff protocols to mitigate cognitive biases and optimize patient care outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39404256What 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.