Avoiding Anchoring Bias in Unexplained Chronic Pain: An Unexpected Diagnosis of Synovial Osteochondromatosis
Open accessAbstract
Unconscious biases may influence clinical decision making, leading to diagnostic error. Anchoring bias occurs when a physician relies too heavily on the initial data received. We present a 57-year-old man with a 3-year history of unexplained right thigh pain who was referred to a physiatry clinic for suggestions on managing presumed non-organic pain. The patient had previously been assessed by numerous specialists and had undergone several imaging investigations, with no identifiable cause for his pain. Physical examination was challenging and there were several ‘yellow flags’ on history. A thorough reconsideration of the possible diagnoses led to the discovery of hip synovial osteochondromatosis as the cause for his symptoms. Over-reliance on the referral information may have led to this diagnosis being missed. In patients with unexplained pain, it is important to be aware of anchoring bias in order to avoid missing rare diagnoses.
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?
Information such as pre-existing notes from prior consultants, normal imaging results, and the presence of yellow flags directs clinicians to focus on their original diagnostic hypothesis without further questioning secondary or alternative possibilities.
“Information such as pre-existing notes from prior consultants, normal imaging results, and the presence of yellow flags directs clinicians to focus on their original diagnostic hypothesis without further questioning secondary or alternative possibilities [99].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [99]
Cites
The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them
Croskerry, P. (2003) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003 · Cited by 1,675 · see citing works
Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review
Saposnik, G., Redelmeier, D., Ruff, C. C., & Tobler, P. N. (2016) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1 · Cited by 1,001 · see citing works
Nicholas, M. K., Linton, S. J., Watson, P. J., & Main, C. J. (2011) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20100224 · Cited by 690 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Murani, R., & Manocha, R. H. K.
- Affiliations
- University of Calgary (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Manocha, Ranita Harpreet Kaur
- Venue
- BMJ Case Reports
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e240462
- ISSN
- 1757-790X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8030675
- OpenAlex
- W3143575090
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- BMJ Case Reports (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Musculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
- Keywords
- anchoring effect, diagnostic errors, synovial chondromatosis, hip pain, referral bias, missed diagnosis, rare diagnosis, rehabilitation medicine
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Physical Examination, Thigh, Chondromatosis, Synovial, Bias, Chronic Pain
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