Cited by 17Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsRadiology practices and education

Misleading One Detail: A Preventable Mode of Diagnostic Error?

Arzy, Shahar, Brezis, Mayer, Khoury, Salim, Simon, Steven R., Ben‐Hur, Tamir·2009·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01098.x

Cites

2 of 2 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?

  • 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].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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