Literature DB >> 3185178

Hindsight bias: an impediment to accurate probability estimation in clinicopathologic conferences.

N V Dawson1, H R Arkes, C Siciliano, R Blinkhorn, M Lakshmanan, M Petrelli.   

Abstract

Although clinicopathologic conferences (CPCs) have been valued for teaching differential diagnosis, their instructional value may be compromised by hindsight bias. This bias occurs when those who know the actual diagnosis overestimate the likelihood that they would have been able to predict the correct diagnosis had they been asked to do so beforehand. Evidence for the presence of the hindsight bias was sought among 160 physicians and trainees attending four CPCs. Before the correct diagnosis was announced, half of the conference audience estimated the probability that each of five possible diagnoses was correct (foresight subjects). After the correct diagnosis was announced the remaining (hindsight) subjects estimated the probability they would have assigned to each of the five possible diagnoses had they been making the initial differential diagnosis. Only 30% of the foresight subjects ranked the correct diagnosis as first, versus 50% of the hindsight subjects (p less than 0.02). Although less experienced physicians consistently demonstrated the hindsight bias, more experienced physicians succumbed only on easier cases.

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3185178     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X8800800406

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  5 in total

1.  Problems for clinical judgement: 2. Obtaining a reliable past medical history.

Authors:  D A Redelmeier; J V Tu; M J Schull; L E Ferris; J E Hux
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2001-03-20       Impact factor: 8.262

2.  Hindsight bias, outcome knowledge and adaptive learning.

Authors:  K Henriksen; H Kaplan
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2003-12

3.  Measuring the impact of diagnostic decision support on the quality of clinical decision making: development of a reliable and valid composite score.

Authors:  Padmanabhan Ramnarayan; Ritika R Kapoor; Michael Coren; Vasantha Nanduri; Amanda L Tomlinson; Paul M Taylor; Jeremy C Wyatt; Joseph F Britto
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2003-08-04       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Expert testimony based on decision analysis: a malpractice case report.

Authors:  S S Weir; P Curtis; R A McNutt
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1990 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 5.  Strategies for Improving Learner Metacognition in Health Professional Education.

Authors:  Melissa S Medina; Ashley N Castleberry; Adam M Persky
Journal:  Am J Pharm Educ       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.047

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.