↓ Skip to main content

Diagnostic errors by medical students: results of a prospective qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (86th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
27 X users

Readers on

mendeley
94 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Diagnostic errors by medical students: results of a prospective qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1044-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leah T. Braun, Laura Zwaan, Jan Kiesewetter, Martin R. Fischer, Ralf Schmidmaier

Abstract

Diagnostic errors occur frequently in daily clinical practice and put patients' safety at risk. There is an urgent need to improve education on clinical reasoning to reduce diagnostic errors. However, little is known about diagnostic errors of medical students. In this study, the nature of the causes of diagnostic errors made by medical students was analyzed. In June 2016, 88 medical students worked on eight cases with the chief complaint dyspnea in a laboratory setting using an electronic learning platform, in summary 704 processed cases. The diagnostic steps of the students were tracked and analyzed. Furthermore, after each case the participants stated their presumed diagnosis and explained why they came to their diagnostic conclusion. The content of these explanations was analyzed qualitatively. Based on the diagnostic data gathering process and the students' explanations, eight different causes could be identified of which the lack of diagnostic skills (24%) and inadequate knowledge base (16%) were the most common. Other causes that often contributed to a diagnostic error were faulty context generation (15%) and premature closure (10%). The causes of misdiagnosis varied per case. Inadequate skills/knowledge and faulty context generation are the major problems in students' clinical reasoning process. These findings are valuable for improving medical education and thus reducing the frequency of diagnostic errors in students' later everyday clinical practice.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 94 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 13%
Researcher 11 12%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Lecturer 7 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 7%
Other 17 18%
Unknown 32 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 35 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 6%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Neuroscience 2 2%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 38 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2018.
All research outputs
#2,297,350
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#325
of 4,050 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,928
of 343,683 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#12
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,050 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 343,683 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.