Ashley N D Meyer1, Velma L Payne, Derek W Meeks, Radha Rao, Hardeep Singh. 1. Houston Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Center of Excellence and the Section of Health Services Research, Houston, Texas2Michael E. DeBakey Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Houston, Texas3Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the relationship between physicians' diagnostic accuracy and their confidence in that accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how physicians' diagnostic calibration, defined as the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and confidence in that accuracy, changes with evolution of the diagnostic process and with increasing diagnostic difficulty of clinical case vignettes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited general internists from an online physician community and asked them to diagnose 4 previously validated case vignettes of variable difficulty (2 easier; 2 more difficult). Cases were presented in a web-based format and divided into 4 sequential phases simulating diagnosis evolution: history, physical examination, general diagnostic testing data, and definitive diagnostic testing. After each phase, physicians recorded 1 to 3 differential diagnoses and corresponding judgments of confidence. Before being presented with definitive diagnostic data, physicians were asked to identify additional resources they would require to diagnose each case (ie, additional tests, second opinions, curbside consultations, referrals, and reference materials). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (scored as 0 or 1), confidence in diagnostic accuracy (on a scale of 0-10), diagnostic calibration, and whether additional resources were requested (no or yes). RESULTS: A total of 118 physicians with broad geographical representation within the United States correctly diagnosed 55.3% of easier and 5.8% of more difficult cases (P < .001). Despite a large difference in diagnostic accuracy between easier and more difficult cases, the difference in confidence was relatively small (7.2 vs 6.4 out of 10, for easier and more difficult cases, respectively) (P < .001) and likely clinically insignificant. Overall, diagnostic calibration was worse for more difficult cases (P < .001) and characterized by overconfidence in accuracy. Higher confidence was related to decreased requests for additional diagnostic tests (P = .01); higher case difficulty was related to more requests for additional reference materials (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study suggests that physicians' level of confidence may be relatively insensitive to both diagnostic accuracy and case difficulty. This mismatch might prevent physicians from reexamining difficult cases where their diagnosis may be incorrect.
IMPORTANCE: Little is known about the relationship between physicians' diagnostic accuracy and their confidence in that accuracy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how physicians' diagnostic calibration, defined as the relationship between diagnostic accuracy and confidence in that accuracy, changes with evolution of the diagnostic process and with increasing diagnostic difficulty of clinical case vignettes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We recruited general internists from an online physician community and asked them to diagnose 4 previously validated case vignettes of variable difficulty (2 easier; 2 more difficult). Cases were presented in a web-based format and divided into 4 sequential phases simulating diagnosis evolution: history, physical examination, general diagnostic testing data, and definitive diagnostic testing. After each phase, physicians recorded 1 to 3 differential diagnoses and corresponding judgments of confidence. Before being presented with definitive diagnostic data, physicians were asked to identify additional resources they would require to diagnose each case (ie, additional tests, second opinions, curbside consultations, referrals, and reference materials). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Diagnostic accuracy (scored as 0 or 1), confidence in diagnostic accuracy (on a scale of 0-10), diagnostic calibration, and whether additional resources were requested (no or yes). RESULTS: A total of 118 physicians with broad geographical representation within the United States correctly diagnosed 55.3% of easier and 5.8% of more difficult cases (P < .001). Despite a large difference in diagnostic accuracy between easier and more difficult cases, the difference in confidence was relatively small (7.2 vs 6.4 out of 10, for easier and more difficult cases, respectively) (P < .001) and likely clinically insignificant. Overall, diagnostic calibration was worse for more difficult cases (P < .001) and characterized by overconfidence in accuracy. Higher confidence was related to decreased requests for additional diagnostic tests (P = .01); higher case difficulty was related to more requests for additional reference materials (P = .01). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study suggests that physicians' level of confidence may be relatively insensitive to both diagnostic accuracy and case difficulty. This mismatch might prevent physicians from reexamining difficult cases where their diagnosis may be incorrect.
Authors: Nikesh Parekh; Jennifer M Stevenson; Rebekah Schiff; J Graham Davies; Stephen Bremner; Tischa Van der Cammen; Jatinder Harchowal; Chakravarthi Rajkumar; Khalid Ali Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Elaine C Khoong; Valy Fontil; Natalie A Rivadeneira; Mekhala Hoskote; Shantanu Nundy; Courtney R Lyles; Urmimala Sarkar Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2021-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Mark L Graber; Asta V Sorensen; Jon Biswas; Varsha Modi; Andrew Wackett; Scott Johnson; Nancy Lenfestey; Ashley N D Meyer; Hardeep Singh Journal: Diagnosis (Berl) Date: 2014-06-19