Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 449

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

Graber, Mark L, Kissam, Stephanie, Payne, Velma L, Meyer, Ashley N D, Sorensen, Asta, Lenfestey, Nancy, Tant, Elizabeth, Henriksen, Kerm, LaBresh, Kenneth, Singh, Hardeep·2012·BMJ Quality & Safety

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000149

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 449

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.