Literature DB >> 21733217

Confirmation bias: why psychiatrists stick to wrong preliminary diagnoses.

R Mendel1, E Traut-Mattausch, E Jonas, S Leucht, J M Kane, K Maino, W Kissling, J Hamann.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors can have tremendous consequences because they can result in a fatal chain of wrong decisions. Experts assume that physicians' desire to confirm a preliminary diagnosis while failing to seek contradictory evidence is an important reason for wrong diagnoses. This tendency is called 'confirmation bias'.
METHOD: To study whether psychiatrists and medical students are prone to confirmation bias and whether confirmation bias leads to poor diagnostic accuracy in psychiatry, we presented an experimental decision task to 75 psychiatrists and 75 medical students.
RESULTS: A total of 13% of psychiatrists and 25% of students showed confirmation bias when searching for new information after having made a preliminary diagnosis. Participants conducting a confirmatory information search were significantly less likely to make the correct diagnosis compared to participants searching in a disconfirmatory or balanced way [multiple logistic regression: odds ratio (OR) 7.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.53-21.22, p<0.001; OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.23-8.56, p=0.02]. Psychiatrists conducting a confirmatory search made a wrong diagnosis in 70% of the cases compared to 27% or 47% for a disconfirmatory or balanced information search (students: 63, 26 and 27%). Participants choosing the wrong diagnosis also prescribed different treatment options compared with participants choosing the correct diagnosis.
CONCLUSIONS: Confirmatory information search harbors the risk of wrong diagnostic decisions. Psychiatrists should be aware of confirmation bias and instructed in techniques to reduce bias.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21733217     DOI: 10.1017/S0033291711000808

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Med        ISSN: 0033-2917            Impact factor:   7.723


  11 in total

1.  Confirmation Bias as a Factor in Pharmacy Student Assessment of Research Study Quality.

Authors:  Donald R Miller; Stefanie J Jangula
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 2.047

2.  Is the Psychiatric History Losing Its Relevance?

Authors:  Richard J Moldawsky
Journal:  Perm J       Date:  2020

3.  Evidence-based Shared-Decision-Making Assistant (SDM-assistant) for choosing antipsychotics: protocol of a cluster-randomized trial in hospitalized patients with schizophrenia.

Authors:  Stefan Leucht; Johannes Hamann; Spyridon Siafis; Nicola Bursch; Katharina Müller; Lisa Schmid; Florian Schuster; Jakob Waibel; Tri Huynh; Florian Matthes; Alessandro Rodolico; Peter Brieger; Markus Bühner; Stephan Heres
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2022-06-17       Impact factor: 4.144

4.  Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?

Authors:  Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Rasheda Rabbani; Lisa M Lix; Alexis F Turgeon; Brett L Houston; Dean A Fergusson; Ryan Zarychanski
Journal:  Can J Anaesth       Date:  2019-02-06       Impact factor: 5.063

5.  A case of fulminant type 1 diabetes masquerading acute pancreatitis.

Authors:  Naoki Matsuura; Shumpei Yoshino; Hiroko Morisaki
Journal:  J Gen Fam Med       Date:  2017-03-21

Review 6.  Biobehavioral assessment of the anxiety disorders: Current progress and future directions.

Authors:  Deah Abbott; Yasmin Shirali; J Kyle Haws; Caleb W Lack
Journal:  World J Psychiatry       Date:  2017-09-22

7.  Diagnosis of urinary tract infection based on symptoms: how are likelihood ratios affected by age? a diagnostic accuracy study.

Authors:  Anne Holm; Volkert Siersma; Gloria Cristina Cordoba
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-01-08       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Experts' Failure to Consider the Negative Predictive Power of Symptom Validity Tests.

Authors:  Isabella J M Niesten; Harald Merckelbach; Brechje Dandachi-FitzGerald; Ingrid Jutten-Rooijakkers; Alfons van Impelen
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-18

9.  A New Method for Re-Analyzing Evaluation Bias: Piecewise Growth Curve Modeling Reveals an Asymmetry in the Evaluation of Pro and Con Arguments.

Authors:  Jens Jirschitzka; Joachim Kimmerle; Ulrike Cress
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Systematic review of clinician-directed nudges in healthcare contexts.

Authors:  Briana S Last; Alison M Buttenheim; Carter E Timon; Nandita Mitra; Rinad S Beidas
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-07-12       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.