The DOI matches its Crossref record; 19 of the 19 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Clinical Vignette-Based Surveys: A Tool for Assessing Physician Practice Variation
Abstract
Clinical vignette-based surveys have been used for more than 30 years to measure variation in physicians' approaches to the diagnosis and treatment of patients with similar health problems. Vignettes offer advantages over medical record reviews, analysis of claims data, and standardized patients. A vignette-based survey can be completed more quickly than a record review or standardized patient program. Research has shown that vignette-based surveys produce better measures of quality of care than medical record reviews when used to measure differential diagnosis, selection of tests, and treatment decisions. Although standardized patients are preferred when measuring communication and physical examination skills, vignettes are more cost-effective than standardized patients when assessing clinical physicians' decision making. Vignettes offer better opportunities to isolate physicians' decision making and to control case-mix variation than do analyses of claims data sets. Clinical vignette-based surveys are simple and economical tools that can be used to characterize physicians' practice variation.
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
Wennberg, J., & Gittelsohn, A. (1973) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.182.4117.1102 · Cited by 1,876
Peabody, J. W., Luck, J., Glassman, P., Dresselhaus, T. R., & Lee, M. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.13.1715 · Cited by 1,241
Peabody, J. W., Luck, J., Glassman, P., Jain, S., Hansen, J., Spell, M., & Lee, M. (2004) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-141-10-200411160-00008 · Cited by 714
Quality-of-Care Assessment: Choosing a Method for Peer Review
Brook, R. H., & Appel, F. A. (1973) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm197306212882504 · Cited by 278
Why Do Patients of Female Physicians Have Higher Rates of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening?
Lurie, N., Margolis, K. L., McGovern, P. G., Mink, P. J., & Slater, J. S. (1997) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-006-0005-3 · Cited by 246
Measuring physiciansʼ performances by using simulated patients
Norman, G. R., Neufeld, V. R., Walsh, A., Woodward, C., & Gliva‐McConvey, G. A. (1985) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-198512000-00004 · Cited by 135
The product of a hospital. 1914.
CODMAN, E. A. (1990) · PubMed · Cited by 116
Landon, B. E., Reschovsky, J. D., Reed, M. C., & Blumenthal, D. (2001) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-200108000-00014 · Cited by 110
Patients donʼt present with five choices
Veloski, J. J., Rabinowitz, H. K., Robeson, M., et al. (1999) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199905000-00022 · Cited by 94
Self-citationManagement of uncomplicated acute diverticulitis
Schechter, S., Mulvey, J., & Eisenstat, T. E. (1999) · Diseases of the Colon & Rectum · doi:10.1007/bf02234169 · Cited by 93
Cited by
Evans, S. C., Roberts, M. C., Keeley, J. W., Blossom, J. B., Amaro, C. M., Garcia, A. M., Stough, C. O., Canter, K. S., Robles, R., & Reed, G. M. (2015) · International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.12.001 · Cited by 757
Improving the accuracy of medical diagnosis with causal machine learning
Richens, J. G., Lee, C. M., & Johri, S. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17419-7 · Cited by 598
Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record
P. Goddu, A., O’Conor, K. J., Lanzkron, S., Saheed, M. O., Saha, S., Peek, M. E., Haywood, C., & Beach, M. C. (2018) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-017-4289-2 · Cited by 437
Calabrese, S. K., Earnshaw, V. A., Underhill, K., Hansen, N. B., & Dovidio, J. F. (2014) · AIDS and Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0675-x · Cited by 254
Gilbert, S., Mehl, A., Baluch, A., Cawley, C., Challiner, J., Fraser, H., Millen, E., Montazeri, M., Multmeier, J., Pick, F., et al. (2020) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040269 · Cited by 183
Metadata
- Authors
- Veloski, J., Tai, S., Evans, A. S., & Nash, D. B.
- Venue
- American Journal of Medical Quality
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 151-157
- ISSN
- 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
- 1555-824X
- OpenAlex
- W2018320790
- Cited by
- 381
- References
- 19
- FWCI
- 14.75
- 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: Clinical Vignette-Based Surveys: A Tool for Assessing Physician Practice Variation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1062860605274520
- The paper
- Veloski, J., Tai, S., Evans, A. S., & Nash, D. B. (2005). Clinical Vignette-Based Surveys: A Tool for Assessing Physician Practice Variation. American Journal of Medical Quality. https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860605274520
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.
