Cited by 58Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cognitive biases, environmental, patient and personal factors associated with critical care decision making: A scoping review

Open access
Beldhuis, Iris E., Marapin, Ramesh S., Jiang, You Yuan, Simões de Souza, Nádia F., Georgiou, Artemis, Kaufmann, Thomas, Castela Forte, José, van der Horst, Iwan C.C.·2021·Journal of Critical Care

Abstract

PURPOSE: Cognitive biases and factors affecting decision making in critical care can potentially lead to life-threatening errors. We aimed to examine the existing evidence on the influence of cognitive biases and factors on decision making in critical care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching MEDLINE for articles from 2004 to November 2020. We included studies conducted in physicians that described cognitive biases or factors associated with decision making. During the study process we decided on the method to summarize the evidence, and based on the obtained studies a descriptive summary of findings was the best fit. RESULTS: Thirty heterogenous studies were included. Four main biases or factors were observed, e.g. cognitive biases, personal factors, environmental factors, and patient factors. Six (20%) studies reported biases associated with decision making comprising omission-, status quo-, implicit-, explicit-, outcome-, and overconfidence bias. Nineteen (63%) studies described personal factors, twenty-two (73%) studies described environmental factors, and sixteen (53%) studies described patient factors. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence on cognitive biases and factors is heterogenous, but shows they influence clinical decision. Future studies should investigate the prevalence of cognitive biases and factors in clinical practice and their impact on clinical outcomes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.04.012

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • These biases stem from innate psychological tendencies and can potentially lead to misjudgments and suboptimal outcomes in patient care.

    “These biases stem from innate psychological tendencies and can potentially lead to misjudgments and suboptimal outcomes in patient care [2-4].”

    From Mitigating cognitive biases in clinical decision-making through multi-agent conversations using large language models: simulation study (2024) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says heuristics can give rise to cognitive biases that lead to errors in judgment, diagnostic inaccuracies and medical errors. It does not say those tendencies are innate, so that part of the claim is unsupported. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series [Internet]. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of In- terventions: Cochrane Book Series; 2008; 1-649 cited 2020 Apr 1. Available from: www.wiley.com.
  2. Saposnik G, Cote R, Mamdani M, Raptis S, Thorpe KE, Fang J, et al. JURaSSiC: accuracy of clinician vs risk score prediction of ischemic stroke outcomes. Neurology. 2013;81 (5):448-55.
  3. Weng L, Joynt GM, Lee A, Du B, Leung P, Peng J, et al. Attitudes towards ethical prob- lems in critical care medicine: the Chinese perspective. Intensive Care Med. 2011 Apr;37(4):655-64.
  4. Royce CS, Hayes MM, Schwartzstein RM. Teaching Critical Thinking: A Case for In- struction in Cognitive Biases to Reduce Diagnostic Errors and Improve Patient Safety [Internet]. , 94Academic Medicine. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2019; 187-94 [cited 2020 Sep 21]. Available from: https://pubmed-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy-ub. rug.nl/30398993/.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Beldhuis, I. E., Marapin, R. S., Jiang, Y. Y., Simões de Souza, N. F., Georgiou, A., Kaufmann, T., Castela Forte, J., & van der Horst, I. C. C.
Affiliations
University Medical Center Groningen (NL)
Corresponding author
Beldhuis, Iris E.
Venue
Journal of Critical Care
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-08
Volume
64
Pages
144-153
ISSN
0883-9441 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3155782813
Cited by
58
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4
FWCI
1.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Critical Care (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
cognitive biases, clinical decision-making, intensive care, omission bias, status quo bias, implicit bias, overconfidence, outcome bias, environmental factors, patient factors, personal factors, medical errors, physician decision-making
MeSH terms
Cognition, Critical Care, Decision Making, Humans, Physicians, Bias

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