ArticlePloS one2025
Dropping the baton: Cognitive biases in emergency physicians.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diagnostic capability of large language models in critically ill patients: a prospective single-centre study comparing ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini with emergency physicians.BMC emergency medicine · 2026Observational
- Article
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionClinical medicine is becoming more complex and increasingly requires a team-based approach to deliver healthcare needs. This dispersion of cognitive reasoning across individuals, teams and systems (termed "distributed cognition") means that our understanding of cognitive biases and errors must expand beyond traditional "in-the-head" individual mental models and focus on a broader "out-in-the-world" context instead. To our knowledge, no qualitative studies thus far have examined cognitive biases in clinical settings from a team-based sociocultural perspective. Our study therefore seeks to explore how cognitive biases and errors among emergency physicians (EPs) arise due to sociocultural influences and lapses in team cognition. METHODOLOGY: Our study team comprised four EPs of different seniorities from three different institutions and local and international academics who provided qualitative methodological guidance. We adopted a constructivist paradigm and employed a reflexive thematic analysis approach which acknowledged our researcher reflexivity. We conducted seven focus group discussions with 25 EPs who were purposively sampled for maximum variation. Our research question was: How do sociocultural factors lead to cognitive biases and medical errors among EPs?
resultsOur themes coalesce around sociocultural pressures related to team psychology. In theme one, the EP is compelled by sociocultural pressures to blindly trust colleagues. In the second, the EP is obliged by cultural norms to be "nice" and neatly summarise cases into illness scripts during handovers. In the last, the EP is under immense pressure to follow conventional wisdom, comply with clinical protocols and not challenge inpatient specialists.
conclusionCognitive biases and errors in clinical decision-making can arise due to lapses in distributed team cognition. Although this study focuses on emergency medicine, these pitfalls in team-based cognition are relevant across the entire continuum of care and across all specialties of medicine. The hyperacute nature of emergency medicine merely exacerbates and condenses these into a compressed timeframe. Indeed, similar relays are run every day in every discipline of medicine, with the same unified goal of doing the best for our patients while not committing cognitive errors and dropping the baton.
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.