ArticleJournal of hospital medicine2026
Informal peer diagnostic second opinion: Hospitalist practices and perspectives.
Article in Journal of hospital medicine, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Team-based care enhances accurate diagnosis in hospitalized patients. In addition to formal inter-professional collaboration, such as specialty consultation, many hospitalists use informal strategies, such as peer diagnostic second opinions. Little is known about this practice. We conducted a cross-sectional survey among hospital medicine physicians and Advanced Practice Providers at 13 hospitals. We assessed the frequency of requesting and providing peer second opinions, comfort discussing diagnostic uncertainty, and perceived barriers to second opinions. 338 hospitalists responded. Half (51.5%) reported routinely seeking a second opinion when facing diagnostic uncertainty. 98.2% felt psychologically safe discussing uncertainty, and 97.3% believed second opinions improved diagnostic accuracy. The most common barriers to seeking a peer-second opinion were time constraints (64.3%) and fear of bothering colleagues (56.6%). Less experienced hospitalists were more likely to report vulnerability as a barrier (39.2% vs. 26.8%, p = .03). Strengthening systems that facilitate peer consultation and support junior clinicians could improve diagnostic collaboration and accuracy.
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.