ArticleCJEM2025
Aortic dissection in the ED: a medico-legal perspective on diagnostic delays and failures.
Article in CJEM, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAortic dissection is a life-threatening emergency and delayed or missed diagnoses can result in significant morbidity and mortality for patients.
methodsWe conducted a quantitative and qualitative analysis of medico-legal cases from a national repository involving thoracic aortic dissection seen in the emergency department during a 10-year period. We thematically analyzed peer expert criticism of the care in these cases, including provider, team, and systems factors related to diagnostic issues. We also applied two clinical decision tools to explore whether use of these tools could have affected the diagnostic process.
resultsOf 3,531 medico-legal cases in the emergency department during our study period, just 43 were related to aortic dissection. Patients were primarily male (68.2%), presented for care at large urban centers (65.1%), and were triaged as urgent or emergent (72.1%). Thirty-six patients died of their aortic dissection. A thematic analysis identified atypical presentations, diagnostic anchoring, misinterpretation or misuse of tests, communication breakdowns, and resource limitations as common in these cases.
conclusionsMissed diagnoses of aortic dissection in the ED often result from a combination of cognitive, communication, and system-level factors. Understanding these contributors can inform evidence-based, systems-level supports and strategies to enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce patient harm.
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.