Cited by 102Electronic Health Records SystemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Do physicians value decision support? A look at the effect of decision support systems on physician opinion

Dreiseitl, Stephan, Binder, Michael·2005·Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Abstract

Objective Clinical decision support systems are on the verge of becoming routine software tools in clinical settings. We investigate the question of how physicians react when faced with decision support suggestions that contradict their own diagnoses.Methodology We used a study design involving 52 volunteer dermatologists who each rated the malignancy of 25 lesion images on an ordinal scale and gave a dichotomous excise/no excise recommendation for each lesion image. After seeing the system's rating and excise suggestions, the physicians could revise their initial recommendations.Results We observed that in 24% of the cases in which the physicians' diagnoses did not match those of the decision support system, the physicians changed their diagnoses. There was a slight but significant negative correlation between susceptibility to change and experience level of the physicians. Physicians were significantly less likely to follow the decision system's recommendations when they were confident of their initial diagnoses. No differences between the physicians' inclinations to following excise versus no excise recommendations could be observed.Conclusion These results indicate that physicians are quite susceptible to accepting the recommendations of decision support systems, and that quality assurance and validation of such systems is therefore of paramount importance.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artmed.2004.07.007

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dreiseitl, S., & Binder, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria (AT)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
Corresponding author
Dreiseitl, Stephan
Venue
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-01
Volume
33
Issue
1
Pages
25-30
ISSN
0933-3657 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2044055744
Cited by
102
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
11.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
clinical decision support systems, physician attitudes, diagnostic confidence, diagnostic accuracy, dermatology, system validation, quality assurance
MeSH terms
Austria, Decision Making, Computer-Assisted, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Skin Diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review