ArticleWorld journal of emergency medicine2026
Cognitive biases and misdiagnosis of aortic dissection at emergency departments.
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.
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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.