Misleading One Detail: A Preventable Mode of Diagnostic Error?
Abstract
Rationale, aims and objectives Despite advances in our understanding of cognitive biases in clinical practice, little is known about correction or prevention of diagnostic errors. The presence of a single misleading detail may lead clinicians down a cognitive and actual path toward an incorrect diagnosis. Methods In a large teaching hospital, we surveyed 51 attending doctors in internal medicine, presenting each with 10 clinical vignettes and soliciting their diagnosis of the condition leading to the presentation. Each of the 10 clinical cases included a single misleading detail. Results This survey elicited a wrong diagnosis in 90% of cases, which was reduced to 30% when omitting the misleading detail from the vignette. Diagnostic accuracy did not improve by warning doctors about potentially misleading information. Asking doctors to identify a leading diagnostic detail and then to formulate an alternative diagnosis after omission of the detail, significantly reduced diagnostic error rate by nearly 50%. Conclusion Systematic re‐examination of leading diagnostic clues may help to reduce errors in diagnosis.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Documentation errors, especially data omissions, can influence diagnostic decisions and lead to inappropriate treatments.
“Documentation errors, especially data omissions, can influence diagnostic decisions and lead to inappropriate treatments [174,175].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [175]
Cites
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 · Cited by 28,810 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dual-process cognitive interventions to enhance diagnostic reasoning: a systematic review
Lambe, K. A., O'Reilly, G., Kelly, B. D., & Curristan, S. (2016) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004417 · Cited by 215 · see citing works
Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors
Yen, C., Epling, J. W., Rockwell, M., & Vaughn-Cooke, M. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16020347 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Arzy, S., Brezis, M., Khoury, S., Simon, S. R., & Ben‐Hur, T.
- Affiliations
- Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Arzy, Shahar
- Venue
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2009-09-24
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 804-806
- ISSN
- 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2753
- OpenAlex
- W2030082944
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, cognitive biases, diagnostic accuracy, clinical vignettes, internal medicine, error prevention, alternative diagnoses, attending physicians
- MeSH terms
- Cognition, Diagnosis, Differential, Diagnostic Errors, Hospitals, Teaching, Humans, Internal Medicine, Israel, Teaching, Health Care Surveys
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