Cited by 200Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPrimary Care and Health OutcomesPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Diagnostic Difficulty and Error in Primary Care—A Systematic Review

Kostopoulou, O., Delaney, B. C, Munro, C. W·2008·Family Practice

Abstract

Background Diagnostic error in primary care can have serious implications for the patient, the clinician and the health-care system, possibly more so than other types of error. Objective To identify common characteristics of diseases that GPs may misdiagnose. Methods Systematic search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases for primary research on diagnostic error/delay in primary care. Papers on system errors, patient delay, case reports, reviews, opinion pieces, studies not based on actual cases and studies not using a systematic sample were excluded from the review. Twenty-one papers were included. All papers were assessed for quality using the GRADE system. Common features were identified across diseases and presentations that made diagnosis difficult and led to error/delay. Results Most studies were retrospective cohorts of patients recruited in hospital and collected data from patient interviews and/or hospital records, resulting in incomplete and potentially biased information. It was usually not possible to determine preventability of the delay. Some conditions were extremely rare, suggesting a specialist research interest rather than an increased rate of misdiagnosis. Conditions investigated were malignancies, myocardial infarction, meningitis, dementia, iron deficiency anaemia, asthma, tremor in the elderly and HIV. Common features of difficulty were atypical presentations, non-specific presentations, very low prevalence, the presence of co-morbidity and perceptual feat…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/cmn071

Cites

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?

  • Constitutional or non-specific symptoms offer little diagnostic value and are not exclusive to any specific disease, leading to issues in differentiating possible diagnoses.

    “Constitutional or non-specific symptoms are general symptoms that offer little diagnostic value and are not exclusive to any specific disease or condition, as they can arise from multiple causes, leading to issues in differentiating possible diagnoses [133].”

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 42 · Cited by 200

Authors
Kostopoulou, O., Delaney, B. C., & Munro, C. W.
Affiliations
University of Birmingham (GB)
Venue
Family Practice
Published
2008-12-01
Volume
25
Issue
6
Pages
400-413
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
OpenAlex
W2128867867
Cited by
200
References
42
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 14
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
diagnostic errors, delayed diagnosis, primary care, general practitioners, misdiagnosis, atypical presentation, non-specific symptoms, comorbidities
MeSH terms
Diagnosis, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Primary Health Care, Epidemiologic Studies

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