The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review
Abstract
Background: Errors in clinical reasoning occur in most cases in which the diagnosis is missed, delayed or wrong. The goal of this review was to identify interventions that might reduce the likelihood of these cognitive errors. Design: We searched PubMed and other medical and non-medical databases and identified additional literature through references from the initial data set and suggestions from subject matter experts. Articles were included if they either suggested a possible intervention or formally evaluated an intervention and excluded if they focused solely on improving diagnostic tests or provider satisfaction. Results: We identified 141 articles for full review, 42 reporting tested interventions to reduce the likelihood of cognitive errors, 100 containing suggestions, and one article with both suggested and tested interventions. Articles were classified into three categories: (1) Interventions to improve knowledge and experience, such as simulation-based training, improved feedback and education focused on a single disease; (2) Interventions to improve clinical reasoning and decision-making skills, such as reflective practice and active metacognitive review; and (3) Interventions that provide cognitive ‘help’ that included use of electronic records and integrated decision support, informaticians and facilitating access to information, second opinions and specialists. Conclusions: We identified a wide range of possible approaches to reduce cognitive errors in diagnosis. Not all the suggestions have been tested, and of those that have, the evaluations typically involved trainees in artificial settings, making it difficult to extrapolate the results to actual practice. Future progress in this area will require methodological refinements in outcome evaluation and rigorously evaluating interventions already suggested, many of which are well conceptualised and widely endorsed.
Overview
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
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975) · Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making · doi:10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_8 · Cited by 22,650
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364
Deliberate practice and acquisition of expert performance: a general overview
Anders Ericsson, K. (2008) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00227.x · Cited by 1,975
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
Diagnostic error in internal medicine
Graber, M. L., Franklin, N., & Gordon, R. (2005) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493 · Cited by 1,549
Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends
Norman, G. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x · Cited by 1,018
A Universal Model of Diagnostic Reasoning
Croskerry, P. (2009) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e3181ace703 · Cited by 1,016
Educational Strategies to Promote Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning
Bowen, J. L. (2006) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra054782 · Cited by 931
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1997) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2734 · Cited by 572
Mussweiler, T., Strack, F., & Pfeiffer, T. (2000) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672002611010 · Cited by 556
Cited by
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
Norman, G. R., Monteiro, S. D., Sherbino, J., Ilgen, J. S., Schmidt, H. G., & Mamede, S. (2017) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000001421 · Cited by 594
Bruno, M. A., Walker, E. A., & Abujudeh, H. H. (2015) · RadioGraphics · doi:10.1148/rg.2015150023 · Cited by 573
Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings
Singh, H., Giardina, T. D., Meyer, A. N. D., Forjuoh, S. N., Reis, M. D., & Thomas, E. J. (2013) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777 · Cited by 559
Self-citationCognitive debiasing 2: impediments to and strategies for change
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., & Mamede, S. (2013) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001713 · Cited by 419
Metadata
- Authors
- Graber, M. L., Kissam, S., Payne, V. L., Meyer, A. N. D., Sorensen, A., Lenfestey, N., Tant, E., Henriksen, K., LaBresh, K., & Singh, H.
- Venue
- BMJ Quality & Safety
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2012-04-27
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 535-557
- ISSN
- 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-5415
- 2044-5423
- OpenAlex
- W2164507351
- Cited by
- 449
- References
- 21
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149
- The paper
- Graber, M. L., Kissam, S., Payne, V. L., Meyer, A. N. D., Sorensen, A., Lenfestey, N., Tant, E., Henriksen, K., LaBresh, K., & Singh, H. (2012). Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Quality & Safety. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.