Author
Listed:
- Paul D. Frederick
- Heidi D. Nelson
- Patricia A. Carney
- Tad T. Brunyé
- Kimberly H. Allison
- Donald L. Weaver
- Joann G. Elmore
Abstract
Background . Medical decision making may be influenced by contextual factors. We evaluated whether pathologists are influenced by disease severity of recently observed cases. Methods . Pathologists independently interpreted 60 breast biopsy specimens (one slide per case; 240 total cases in the study) in a prospective randomized observational study. Pathologists interpreted the same cases in 2 phases, separated by a washout period of >6 months. Participants were not informed that the cases were identical in each phase, and the sequence was reordered randomly for each pathologist and between phases. A consensus reference diagnosis was established for each case by 3 experienced breast pathologists. Ordered logit models examined the effect the pathologists’ diagnoses on the preceding case or the 5 preceding cases had on their diagnosis for the subsequent index case. Results . Among 152 pathologists, 49 provided interpretive data in both phases I and II, 66 from only phase I, and 37 from phase II only. In phase I, pathologists were more likely to indicate a more severe diagnosis than the reference diagnosis when the preceding case was diagnosed as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive cancer (proportional odds ratio [POR], 1.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15–1.42). Results were similar when considering the preceding 5 cases and for the pathologists in phase II who interpreted the same cases in a different order compared with phase I (POR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.31). Conclusion . Physicians appear to be influenced by the severity of previously interpreted test cases. Understanding types and sources of diagnostic bias may lead to improved assessment of accuracy and better patient care.
Suggested Citation
Paul D. Frederick & Heidi D. Nelson & Patricia A. Carney & Tad T. Brunyé & Kimberly H. Allison & Donald L. Weaver & Joann G. Elmore, 2017.
"The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists’ Medical Decision Making,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 37(1), pages 91-100, January.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:91-100
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X16638326
Download full text from publisher
References listed on IDEAS
- repec:cup:judgdm:v:3:y:2008:i:7:p:570-584 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:cup:judgdm:v:2:y:2007:i::p:380-389 is not listed on IDEAS
- repec:cup:judgdm:v:4:y:2009:i:1:p:64-81 is not listed on IDEAS
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:37:y:2017:i:1:p:91-100. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.