The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists’ Medical Decision Making

Author:

Frederick Paul D.12345,Nelson Heidi D.12345,Carney Patricia A.12345,Brunyé Tad T.12345,Allison Kimberly H.12345,Weaver Donald L.12345,Elmore Joann G.12345

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA (PDF, JGE)

2. Providence Cancer Center, Providence Health and Services Oregon, and Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology and Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA (HDN)

3. Department of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA (PAC)

4. Center for Applied Brain & Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA (TTB)

5. Department of Pathology, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA (KHA)

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.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Health Policy

Reference22 articles.

1. Context Bias

2. Combined histologic and cytologic criteria for the diagnosis of mammary atypical ductal hyperplasia

3. Harris Jay R, Lippman ME, Osborne K, Morrow M. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.

4. Development of clinical guidelines: methodological and practical issues

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3