↓ Skip to main content

Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?

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

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (52nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 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
Investing in the use of a checklist during differential diagnoses consideration: what’s the trade-off?
Published in
BMC Medical Education, November 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1078-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keng Sheng Chew, Jeroen J. G. van Merrienboer, Steven J. Durning

Abstract

A key challenge clinicians face when considering differential diagnoses is whether the patient data have been adequately collected. Insufficient data may inadvertently lead to premature closure of the diagnostic process. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the application of a mnemonic checklist helps to stimulate more patient data collection, thus leading to better diagnostic consideration. A total of 88 final year medical students were assigned to either an educational intervention group or a control group in a non-equivalent group post-test only design. Participants in the intervention group received a tutorial on the use of a mnemonic checklist aimed to minimize cognitive errors in clinical decision-making. Two weeks later, the participants in both groups were given a script concordance test consisting of 10 cases, with 3 items per case, to assess their clinical decisions when additional data are given in the case scenarios. The Mann-Whitney U-test performed on the total scores from both groups showed no statistical significance (U = 792, z = -1.408, p = 0.159). When comparisons were made for the first half and the second half of the SCT, it was found that participants in the intervention group performed significantly better than participants in the control group in the first half of the test, with median scores of 9.15 (IQR 8.00-10.28) vs. 8.18 (IQR 7.16-9.24) respectively, U = 642.5, z = -2.661, p = 0.008. No significant difference was found in the second half of the test, with the median score of 9.58 (IQR 8.90-10.56) vs. 9.81 (IQR 8.83-11.12) for the intervention group and control group respectively (U = 897.5, z = -0.524, p = 0.60). Checklist use in differential diagnoses consideration did show some benefit. However, this benefit seems to have been traded off by the time and effort in using it. More research is needed to determine whether this benefit could be translated into clinical practice after repetitive use.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 51 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Lecturer 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 11 22%
Unknown 16 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 33%
Psychology 6 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 10%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 4%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 30 November 2017.
All research outputs
#7,132,041
of 23,294,050 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#1,254
of 3,431 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,107
of 440,106 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#44
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,294,050 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,431 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% 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 440,106 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.