Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42499971›Full record

ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2026

Cognitive biases and misdiagnosis of aortic dissection at emergency departments.

Francesco Salinaro, Santi Di Pietro, Alessandro Marenzi, Valeria Fumagalli, Benedetta Traversi, Debora Monti, Martina Seguenti, Stefano Perlini, Alessandra Mammana, Daniela Maria Taccagna and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in World journal of emergency 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Francesco Salinaro1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Santi Di Pietro1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Alessandro Marenzi1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Valeria Fumagalli1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Benedetta Traversi1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Debora Monti1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Martina Seguenti1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Stefano Perlini1Emergency Medicine Unit and Emergency Medicine Postgraduate Training Program, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Pavia, IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo Foundation, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Alessandra Mammana2Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Unit of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Daniela Maria Taccagna2Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Unit of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy.
Silvia Damiana Visonà2Department of Public Health, Experimental and Forensic Medicine, Unit of Legal Medicine and Forensic Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia 27100, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAortic dissection (AD) is still a challenging diagnosis with poor prognosis, and its misdiagnosis remains an unresolved problem. Postmortem examination has long been deemed important for understanding the diseases and determining the cause of death. We aim to investigate the concordance between clinical diagnosis and autopsy findings and to identify the most common clinical "red flags" and the cognitive errors involved in the management of AD.

methodsThis retrospective, observational, single-centre study analysed a series of 30 forensic autopsies focusing on the 7 cases of AD. Clinical-autopsy discrepancies were categorised into six predefined classes, and cognitive biases were classified into four types. All records were independently reviewed by two emergency physicians and two forensic pathologists, with consultation from a cognitive psychologist and consensus reached through collegial discussion.

resultsThese seven patients had a mean age of 59 years (range 48-71 years). Loss of consciousness (4/7 patients), lumbar pain (4/7), psychomotor agitation (4/7) and two or more ER visits were considered red flags for AD. The most common malperfusion syndromes were coronary and femoral-iliac. Among the types of diagnostic errors, faulty verification bias was the most common, followed by biases related to faulty information processing. In three patients (43%), the failure to diagnose AD directly contributed to death, as an earlier diagnosis would likely have altered clinical management and improved survival outcomes.

conclusionThere remains a significant unmet need to increase awareness and clinical suspicion of AD in patients presenting with atypical symptoms, non-traditional risk factors, or ambiguous physical findings. Furthermore, identifying and sharing the cognitive underpinnings of errors may aid in reducing misdiagnosis and optimizing both the timing and modality of clinical management.

Indexed as

Aortic dissectionClinical red flagsCognitive errorsEmergency departmentForensic autopsyMisdiagnosis

Identifiers

PMID42499971
PMCPMC13395590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.