Checklists Improve Experts’ Diagnostic Decisions
Open accessAbstract
Context Checklists are commonly proposed tools to reduce error. However, when applied by experts, checklists have the potential to increase cognitive load and result in ‘expertise reversal’. One potential solution is to use checklists in the verification stage, rather than in the initial interpretation stage of diagnostic decisions. This may avoid expertise reversal by preserving the experts’ initial approach. Whether checklist use during the verification stage of diagnostic decision making improves experts’ diagnostic decisions is unknown. Methods Fifteen experts interpreted 18 electrocardiograms (ECGs) in four different conditions: undirected interpretation; verification without a checklist; verification with a checklist, and interpretation combined with verification with a checklist. Outcomes included the number of errors, cognitive load, interpretation time and interpretation length. Outcomes were compared in two analyses: (i) a comparison of verification conditions with and without a checklist, and (ii) a comparison of all four conditions. Standardised scores for each outcome were used to calculate the efficiency of a checklist and to weigh its relative benefit against its relative cost in terms of cognitive load imposed, interpretation time and interpretation length. Results In both analyses, checklist use was found to reduce error (more errors were corrected in verification conditions with checklists [0.29 ± 0.77 versus 0.03 ± 0.61 errors per ECG], and fewer net errors occurred in all conditions with checklists [0.39 ± 1.14 versus 1.04 ± 1.49 errors per ECG]; p < 0.01 for both). Checklists were not associated with increased cognitive load (verifications with and without checklists: 3.7 ± 1.9 and 3.3 ± 2.0, respectively; conditions with and without checklists: 4.0 ± 1.8 versus 3.9 ± 2.0, respectively [p = not significant for both]). Checklists resulted in greater interpretation times and lengths (p < 0.01 for all). However, checklists were efficient in terms of the cognitive load invested, interpretation time and interpretation length (p < 0.01 for all). Conclusions Among ECG interpretation experts, checklist use during the verification stage of diagnostic decisions did not increase cognitive load or cause expertise reversal, but did reduce diagnostic error.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Checklists can interrupt expert-level reasoning strategies in the early stage of the diagnosis process and lead to reduced performance.
“However, while checklists can reduce diagnostic errors, the drawback of checklists has also been found to interrupt expert-level reasoning strategies in the early stage of the diagnosis process and lead to reduced performance [208].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [208]
The available passages are bibliographic metadata, including the title, rather than findings from the paper (labelled Abstract; no page given). Searches for early-stage interruption of expert reasoning and reduced diagnostic performance found no passage addressing that claim. The title alone does not establish whether checklists have that drawback in a particular stage of diagnosis. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Dual-Processing Accounts of Reasoning, Judgment, and Social Cognition
Evans, J. S. B. T. (2008) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629 · Cited by 5,137 · see citing works
Paas, F. G. W. C. (1992) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 · Cited by 2,150 · see citing works
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3801_4 · Cited by 1,927 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2010) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03498.x · Cited by 1,511 · see citing works
Self-citationExpertise Reversal Effect and Its Implications for Learner-Tailored Instruction
Kalyuga, S. (2007) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-007-9054-3 · Cited by 1,056 · 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
Developing Checklists to Prevent Diagnostic Error in Emergency Room Settings
Graber, M. L., Sorensen, A. V., Biswas, J., Modi, V., Wackett, A., Johnson, S., Lenfestey, N., Meyer, A. N. D., & Singh, H. (2014) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2014-0019 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Checklists to Prevent Diagnostic Errors: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Ely, J. W., & Graber, M. A. (2015) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2015-0008 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Wright, B., Faulkner, N., Bragge, P., & Graber, M. (2019) · Diagnosis · doi:10.1515/dx-2018-0104 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
An elderly woman with ‘heart failure’: Cognitive biases and diagnostic error
Mull, N., Reilly, J. B., & Myers, J. S. (2015) · Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine · doi:10.3949/ccjm.82a.14087 · Cited by 9 · 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
- Sibbald, M., de Bruin, A. B. H., & van Merrienboer, J. J. G.
- Affiliations
- University Health Network (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Sibbald, Matthew
- ORCID
- Sibbald, Matthew
- Venue
- Medical Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-02-08
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 301-308
- ISSN
- 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2923
- OpenAlex
- W1836271141
- Cited by
- 92
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 6
- FWCI
- 6.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- Licence
- Locations
- Medical Education (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- 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
- checklists, diagnostic decision-making, cognitive load, diagnostic errors, ECG interpretation, expert clinicians, interpretation time
- MeSH terms
- Cardiovascular Diseases, Clinical Competence, Decision Making, Diagnostic Errors, Electrocardiography, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Linear Models, Checklist
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