ArticleJTCVS open2025
Quantifying random variability in decision-making in pediatric cardiac surgery.
Article in JTCVS open, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Random variability in day-to-day decision-making referred to as "noise" is associated with variation that negatively affects both the reproducibility and quality of decision-making. Although well described in other fields, the prevalence and significance of noise in medical decision-making are understudied and largely unknown. The goal of this study was to quantify noise in medical decision-making using a noise audit. Methods: A noise audit was completed by 71 (n = 71) Heart Centre staff at the Hospital for Sick Children and Seattle Children's Hospital and involved a series of cases and questions surrounding decisions commonly encountered in the care for patients with transposition of the great arteries and critical aortic stenosis. Entropy was used to quantify total variation in responses. Because absolute entropy was not immediately comparable across audit questions with a different number of prespecified options, we reported a standardized version of entropy, which was calculated by dividing the absolute entropy by its theoretical maximum for each case. To compare responses in easy to hard questions across years of experience (<10 years and >10 years) and role, we reported aggregate entropy ratios. Aggregate entropy ratios were calculated by first stratifying by group of comparison and then calculating the standardized entropy for each question and taking the average of standardized entropies for easy questions and hard questions. Finally, to determine the ratio (easy to hard), we divided the average standardized entropy of the easy questions by the average standardized entropy of the hard questions. Results: The overall audit aggregate entropy ratio was 0.85 less than 1, indicating lower-complexity questions had less variation than higher-complexity questions. The aggregate entropy ratio for those with more than 10 years of experience was 0.8 and 0.87, respectively, for those with less than 10 years of experience. The aggregate entropy ratios for those in cardiac critical care, cardiology, and cardiovascular surgery were 0.85, 0.83, and 0.96, respectively. Conclusions: Noise was pervasive in medical decision-making in the analysis of our responses to common medical decisions made for patients with congenital heart disease and can be quantified in a manner that facilitates comparisons.
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.