Cited by 174Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsClinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control

The Challenges in Defining and Measuring Diagnostic Error

Open access
Zwaan, Laura, Singh, Hardeep·2015·Diagnosis

Abstract

Diagnostic errors have emerged as a serious patient safety problem but they are hard to detect and complex to define. At the research summit of the 2013 Diagnostic Error in Medicine 6th International Conference, we convened a multidisciplinary expert panel to discuss challenges in defining and measuring diagnostic errors in real-world settings. In this paper, we synthesize these discussions and outline key research challenges in operationalizing the definition and measurement of diagnostic error. Some of these challenges include 1) difficulties in determining error when the disease or diagnosis is evolving over time and in different care settings, 2) accounting for a balance between underdiagnosis and overaggressive diagnostic pursuits, and 3) determining disease diagnosis likelihood and severity in hindsight. We also build on these discussions to describe how some of these challenges can be addressed while conducting research on measuring 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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/dx-2014-0069

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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?

  • The complexity of defining and quantifying diagnostic error shows that this area is largely overlooked in patient safety compared to other quality concerns, including infection, wrong-site surgery, and adverse drug events.

    “The complexity of defining and quantifying diagnostic error shows that this area is largely overlooked in the field of patient safety when compared to other quality concerns, including infection, wrong-site surgery, and adverse drug events [4,6,7].”

    From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [4]

    The Introduction says diagnostic errors are only beginning to emerge prominently in patient-safety literature and that inconsistent definitions make prevalence studies difficult to compare. This supports the claim about measurement complexity and relative lack of attention, but the paper does not make the specific comparison with infections, wrong-site surgery, and adverse drug events or establish that measurement complexity caused the neglect. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The unpredictable and evolving nature of disease conditions makes diagnostic safety more challenging to address than other healthcare safety issues, such as medication and surgical errors.

    “The unpredictable and evolving nature of disease conditions makes diagnostic safety more challenging to address [4] than other healthcare safety issues, such as medication and surgical errors [1,5].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zwaan, L., & Singh, H.
Affiliations
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Zwaan, Laura
Venue
Diagnosis
Published
2015-03-12
Volume
2
Issue
2
Pages
97-103
ISSN
  • 2194-8011 (ISSN-L)
  • 2194-802X
OpenAlex
W2062974444
Cited by
173
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 6
FWCI
15.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diagnosis (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R13HS021774, R01HS022087)
  • National Cancer Institute (K23CA125585)
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 › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Keywords
diagnostic errors, patient safety, underdiagnosis, retrospective diagnosis

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