ArticleResearch methods in medicine & health sciences2024
Do Physicians Remember Cases? Implications for Longitudinal Designs in Medical Research and Competency Assessment.
Article in Research methods in medicine & health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: In pathology and other specialties of diagnostic medicine, longitudinal studies and competency assessments often involve physicians interpreting the same images multiple times. In these designs, a washout period is used to reduce the chances that later interpretations are influenced by prior exposure. Objective/s: The present study examines whether a washout period between 9-39 months is sufficient to prevent three effects of prior exposure when pathologists review digital breast tissue biopsies and render diagnostic decisions: faster case review durations, higher confidence, and lower perceived difficulty. Methods: In a longitudinal breast pathology study, 48 resident pathologists reviewed a mix of five novel and five repeated digital whole slide images during Phase 2, occurring 9-39 months after an initial Phase 1 review. Importantly, cases that were repeated for some participants in Phase 2 were novel for other participants in Phase 2. We statistically tested for differences in participants' case review duration, self-reported confidence, and self-reported difficulty in Phase 2 based on whether the case was novel or repeated. Results: No statistically significant difference in review time, confidence, or difficulty as a function of whether the case was repeated or novel in a Phase 2 review occurring 9-39 months after initial viewing; this same result was found in a subset of participants with a shorter (9-14-month) washout. Conclusion: These results provide evidence to support the efficacy of at least a 9-month washout period in the design of longitudinal medical imaging and informatics studies to ensure no detectable effect of initial exposure on participant's subsequent case review.
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.