Cited by 187Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsInnovations in Medical Education

Do physicians know when their diagnoses are correct?: Implications for decision support and error reduction

Open access
Friedman, Charles P., Gatti, Guido G., Franz, Timothy M., Murphy, Gwendolyn C., Wolf, Fredric M., Heckerling, Paul S., Fine, Paul L., Miller, Thomas M. +1 more·2005·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

Objective This study explores the alignment between physicians' confidence in their diagnoses and the "correctness" of these diagnoses, as a function of clinical experience, and whether subjects were prone to over-or underconfidence.Design Prospective, counterbalanced experimental design.Setting Laboratory study conducted under controlled conditions at three academic medical centers.Participants Seventy-two senior medical students, 72 senior medical residents, and 72 faculty internists.Intervention We created highly detailed, 2-to 4-page synopses of 36 diagnostically challenging medical cases, each with a definitive correct diagnosis. Subjects generated a differential diagnosis for each of 9 assigned cases, and indicated their level of confidence in each diagnosis.Measurements and main results A differential was considered "correct" if the clinically true diagnosis was listed in that subject's hypothesis list. To assess confidence, subjects rated the likelihood that they would, at the time they generated the differential, seek assistance in reaching a diagnosis. Subjects' confidence and correctness were "mildly" aligned (kappa=.314 for all subjects, .285 for faculty, .227 for residents, and .349 for students). Residents were overconfident in 41% of cases where their confidence and correctness were not aligned, whereas faculty were overconfident in 36% of such cases and students in 25%.Conclusions Even experienced clinicians may be unaware of the correctness of their diagnoses at the time they make them. Medical decision support systems, and other interventions designed to reduce medical errors, cannot rely exclusively on clinicians' perceptions of their needs for such support.

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 · 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.30145.x

Cites

34 of 34 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?

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

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Miller RA. Medical diagnostic decision support systems-past, present, and future. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1994;1:8-27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedman, C. P., Gatti, G. G., Franz, T. M., Murphy, G. C., Wolf, F. M., Heckerling, P. S., Fine, P. L., Miller, T. M., & Elstein, A. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • St. John Fisher University (US)
  • Duke University (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Illinois Chicago (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Friedman, Charles P.
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2005-04
Volume
20
Issue
4
Pages
334-339
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2044202249
Cited by
187
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01lm005630-06)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (R01-LM-05630)
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 › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Innovations in Medical Education
Keywords
diagnostic confidence, overconfidence, diagnostic accuracy, differential diagnosis, clinical experience, medical students, medical residents, faculty physicians, clinical decision support, medical errors, physician self-assessment
MeSH terms
Clinical Competence, Decision Support Techniques, Humans, Internal Medicine, Internship and Residency, Judgment, Prospective Studies, Students, Medical, Linear Models, Medical Errors, Decision Support Systems, Clinical

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