Trial reportBMC health services research2025
How prior spectacle prescriptions shape diagnostic behavior: evidence from a randomized field experiment on vision care in Western China.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDiagnostic errors remain a pressing challenge in health systems with uneven provider capacity and limited diagnostic standardization. In such environments, cognitive biases, particularly anchoring effect, may compromise diagnostic independence and reinforce structural disparities in care quality.
methodsWe conducted a randomized field experiment in western China using standardized patients (SPs) to examine how prior spectacle diagnostic prescriptions influence the behavior and accuracy of second-opinion optometrists. SPs visited optical providers in Shaanxi province, presenting either no prior prescription, a correct one, or an incorrect one. Diagnostic outcomes were evaluated against gold-standard prescriptions issued by an expert ophthalmologist.
resultsExposure to prior prescriptions, especially inaccurate ones, significantly reduced diagnostic accuracy and process completeness. Providers given prior diagnoses were less likely to conduct key tests and spent less time on examinations, suggesting reliance on cognitive shortcuts. These findings provide field-based evidence of anchoring bias in real-world clinical settings.
conclusionsPrior diagnostic information can shape second-opinion decision-making through cognitive anchoring, particularly in systems lacking strong institutional protocols. Addressing these biases through structured diagnostic procedures and provider training may enhance diagnostic accuracy and promote greater equity in vision care delivery.
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.