Clinical assessment of the probability of coronary artery disease: judgmental bias from personal knowledge.

Probability estimates of angiographic coronary artery disease made by experienced, board-certified staff cardiologists were compared with those of cardiologists in training (fellows). In addition, estimates made before coronary angiography were compared with those made several months later based on written clinical summaries of 15 items of objective clinical and test data. Cardiologists were asked to estimate the probabilities of coronary artery disease, multivessel disease, and triple-vessel or left main disease. The study population consisted of 510 consecutive patients without valvular disease referred for the first time for coronary angiography to three hospitals. Both staff and fellows consistently overestimated the pre-angiographic probability of coronary artery disease. The probabilities estimated from patient summaries were always significantly lower than the pre-angiographic assessments. Only staff cardiologists reliably assessed the probabilities of coronary artery disease during the second assessment (p less than 0.05). Thus, estimates of disease probability based on clinical judgment vary according to the source of information, and these estimates are more accurate when physicians have objective data on hand and do not know the identities of the patients.