The DOI matches its Crossref record; 20 of the 20 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them
Abstract
In the area of patient safety, recent attention has focused on diagnostic error. The reduction of diagnostic error is an important goal because of its associated morbidity and potential preventability. A critical subset of diagnostic errors arises through cognitive errors, especially those associated with failures in perception, failed heuristics, and biases; collectively, these have been referred to as cognitive dispositions to respond (CDRs). Historically, models of decision-making have given insufficient attention to the contribution of such biases, and there has been a prevailing pessimism against improving cognitive performance through debiasing techniques. Recent work has catalogued the major cognitive biases in medicine; the author lists these and describes a number of strategies for reducing them ("cognitive debiasing"). Principle among them is metacognition, a reflective approach to problem solving that involves stepping back from the immediate problem to examine and reflect on the thinking process. Further research effort should be directed at a full and complete description and analysis of CDRs in the context of medicine and the development of techniques for avoiding their associated adverse outcomes. Considerable potential exists for reducing cognitive diagnostic errors with this approach. The author provides an extensive list of CDRs and a list of strategies to reduce diagnostic errors.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Cognitive errors are an important source of diagnostic error35”
From Large Language Models lack essential metacognition for reliable medical reasoning (2025) · cites this paper as [35]
In the citing paper
“However, because prior research provides ample evidence that even experts making critical decisions resort to heuristic thinking (and fall prey to cognitive biases) [4, 6, 17, 42], we have some confidence that our results will generalize broadly.”
From To Trust or to Think: Cognitive Forcing Functions Can Reduce Overreliance on AI in AI-assisted Decision-making (2021) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“When making decisions under time pressure, people may be more likely to use recognition of past experiences and heuristics instead of more analytical strategies, such as systematically evaluating different options [18, 38, 54].”
From To Recommend or Not to Recommend: Designing and Evaluating AI-Enabled Decision Support for Time-Critical Medical Events (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“Because of heightened time pressure, poor access to information, and increased number of decisions, emergency medicine providers often rely on heuristics when making decisions [18].”
From To Recommend or Not to Recommend: Designing and Evaluating AI-Enabled Decision Support for Time-Critical Medical Events (2025) · cites this paper as [18]
Citations
Cites
Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.
Shafer, G. R., Kahnerman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1984) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288362 · Cited by 5,658
Incidence of Adverse Events and Negligence in Hospitalized Patients
Brennan, T. A., Leape, L. L., Laird, N. M., Hebert, L. E., Localio, A. R., Lawthers, A. G., Newhouse, J. P., Weiler, P. C., & Hiatt, H. H. (1991) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199102073240604 · Cited by 4,631
The Quality in Australian Health Care Study
Wilson, R. M., Runciman, W. B., Gibberd, R. W., Harrison, B. T., Newby, L., & Hamilton, J. D. (1995) · The Medical Journal of Australia · doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1995.tb124691.x · Cited by 2,480
Incidence and Types of Adverse Events and Negligent Care in Utah and Colorado
Thomas, E. J., Studdert, D. M., Burstin, H. R., Orav, E. J., Zeena, T., WILLIAMS, E. J., Howard, K., Weiler, P. C., & Brennan, T. A. (2000) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200003000-00003 · Cited by 1,673
The psychology of judgment and decision making
(1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.31-2965 · Cited by 1,255
Achieving Quality in Clinical Decision Making: Cognitive Strategies and Detection of Bias
Croskerry, P. (2002) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01574.x · Cited by 938
Self-citationAchieving quality in clinical decision making: cognitive strategies and detection of bias
Croskerry, P. (2002) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1197/aemj.9.11.1184 · Cited by 938
Self-citationJudgement and Choice: The Psychology of Decision.
Winkler, R. L., & Hogarth, R. M. (1983) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288669 · Cited by 612
On the psychology of experimental surprises.
Slovic, P., & Fischhoff, B. (1977) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.4.544 · Cited by 488
Cognitive forcing strategies in clinical decisionmaking
Croskerry, P. (2003) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1067/mem.2003.22 · Cited by 440
Self-citationImpediments to accurate clinical judgment and possible ways to minimize their impact.
Arkes, H. R. (1981) · Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-006x.49.3.323 · Cited by 345
Reducing Diagnostic Errors in Medicine
Graber, M. L., Gordon, R., & Franklin, N. (2002) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200210000-00009 · Cited by 287
Consider the Source: The Evolution of Adaptations for Decoupling and Metarepresentation
Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2000) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195141146.003.0004 · Cited by 269
Decision analysis and clinical judgment
Schwartz, W. B., Gorry, G. A., Kassirer, J. P., & Essig, A. (1973) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/0002-9343(73)90203-9 · Cited by 245
Clinical Decision Making: An Emergency Medicine Perspective
Kovacs, G. J., & Croskerry, P. (1999) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb01246.x · Cited by 173
Self-citationCroskerry, P. (2000) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2000.tb00468.x · Cited by 136
Self-citationHard Decisions, Bad Decisions: On Decision Quality and Decision Aiding
Yates, J. F., Veinott, E. S., & Patalano, A. L. (2003) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511609978.003 · Cited by 134
Cognitive Aids and Debiasing Methods: CAN Cognitive Pills Cure Cognitive Ills?
Keren, G. B. (1990) · Advances in psychology · doi:10.1016/s0166-4115(08)61341-2 · Cited by 64
Toward the Reduction of Entrapment1
Nathanson, S., Brockner, J., Brenner, D., Samuelson, C. D., Countryman, M., Lloyd, M., & Rubin, J. Z. (1982) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1982.tb00859.x · Cited by 31
Use of the competing-hypotheses heuristic to reduce ‘pseudodiagnosticity’
Wolf, F. M., Gruppen, L. D., & Billi, J. E. (1988) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-198807000-00006 · Cited by 21
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Graber, 2002, 77, 981
- Wolf, 1988, J Med Educ, 63, 548
- Croskerry, 2002, Emerg Med J, 19, A9
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods
Althubaiti, A. (2016) · Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare · doi:10.2147/jmdh.s104807 · Cited by 3,018
Diagnostic error in internal medicine
Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493 · Cited by 1,549
Best care at lower cost: the path to continuously learning health care in America
Smith, M. A., Saunders, R., Stuckhardt, L., & McGinnis, J. M. (2014) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-3277 · Cited by 1,358
Buçinca, Z., Malaya, M. B., & Gajos, K. Z. (2021) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2102.09692 · Cited by 1,124
“However, because prior research provides ample evidence that even experts making critical decisions resort to heuristic thinking (and fall prey to cognitive biases) [4, 6, 17, 42], we have some confidence that our results will generalize broadly.”
BackgroundOverconfidence as a Cause of Diagnostic Error in Medicine
Berner, E. S., & Graber, M. L. (2008) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2008.01.001 · Cited by 1,034
Metadata
- Authors
- Croskerry, P.
- Affiliations
- Dalhousie University (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Croskerry, Pat
- ORCID
- Croskerry, Pat
- Venue
- Academic Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2003-08
- Volume
- 78
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 775-780
- ISSN
- 1040-2446 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967291734
- Cited by
- 1,675
- References
- 20
- Citations by year
- 2026: 186 · 2025: 83 · 2024: 74 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 87 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 120 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 87 · 2016: 117 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 86 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 66
- FWCI
- 12.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Academic Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (P20HS11592-02)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, cognitive errors, cognitive biases, cognitive debiasing, metacognition, heuristics, perceptual errors, clinical decision-making, patient safety
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Decision Support Techniques, Diagnostic Errors, Humans
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
