Cited by 57Health Sciences Research and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsClinical practice guidelines implementation

Deciding without Data

Open access
Darst, Jeffrey R., Newburger, Jane W., Resch, Stephen, Rathod, Rahul H., Lock, James E.·2010·Congenital Heart Disease

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Physician decisions drive most of the increases in health care expenditures, yet virtually no published literature has sought to understand the types of evidence used by physicians as they make decisions in real time. METHODS: Ten pediatric cardiologists recorded every clinically significant decision made during procedures, test interpretation, or delivery of inpatient and outpatient care during 5 full days and 5 half days of care delivery. The basis for each decision was assigned to one of 10 predetermined categories, ranging from arbitrary and anecdotal, to various qualities of published studies, to parental preference and avoiding a lawsuit. RESULTS: During the 7.5 days, 1188 decisions (158/day) were made. Almost 80% of decisions were deemed by the physicians to have no basis in any prior published data and fewer than 3% of decisions were based on a study specific to the question at hand. CONCLUSIONS: In this pilot study, physicians were unable to cite a formal evidence source for most of their real-time clinical decision making, including those that consumed medical resources. Novel approaches to building an evidence base produced from real-time clinical decisions may be essential for health care reform based on data.

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.1747-0803.2010.00433.x

Cites

13 of 13 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Darst, J. R., Newburger, J. W., Resch, S., Rathod, R. H., & Lock, J. E.
Affiliations
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Darst, Jeffrey R.
Venue
Congenital Heart Disease
Published
2010-07-23
Volume
5
Issue
4
Pages
339-342
ISSN
  • 1747-079X (ISSN-L)
  • 1747-0803
OpenAlex
W2129833620
Cited by
57
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Congenital Heart Disease (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (T32HL007572)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
clinical decision-making, evidence-based medicine, pediatric cardiology, evidence base, health care expenditure, parental preferences
MeSH terms
Boston, Decision Support Techniques, Heart Defects, Congenital, Hospitals, Pediatric, Humans, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Care Management, Cardiology Service, Hospital, Program Development, Treatment Outcome, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Patient Selection, Critical Pathways, Evidence-Based Medicine

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