ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026
Atypical Presentations at Risk for Diagnostic Errors in Internal Medicine: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Applications of DeepSeek in Medicine: Bibliometric Analysis and Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLittle is known about how atypical disease presentations lead to diagnostic errors. Better definitions of atypical presentations may improve our understanding. We aimed to describe how atypical presentations were defined in studies of diagnostic errors in internal medicine.
methodsWe included papers that described the association between atypical presentations in adult patients and diagnostic errors in internal medicine, indexed from database inception to July 31, 2025. We excluded case reports and conference abstracts. The data were extracted through MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv searches.
resultsWe included 56 papers in this review. Thirty studies included a definition of atypical presentation, but there was a considerable heterogeneity among the definitions. Using basic qualitative content analysis, we developed a new approach (Primary, Suggestive, Uncommon, and Chameleon features-the PSUC approach) to describe clinical presentations and identified four patterns at high risk of diagnostic errors. Pattern 1 lacks Primary disease features (i.e., features always written in textbooks) but has Suggestive features (i.e., stimulating consideration of specific disease); Pattern 2 lacks Primary features but Suggestive and Uncommon features (i.e., uncommon but known features in specific disease) are present. Pattern 3 lacks Primary and Suggestive features but has Uncommon features and Pattern 4 is similar to 3 but with Chameleon features (i.e., primary features for other diseases). DISCUSSION: Atypical presentations in studies of diagnostic errors in internal medicine currently have high heterogeneity. A new approach to classify atypical presentations may be useful and warrants investigation in future research.
trial registrationOpen Science Framework www.osf.io/27d5m .
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.