References
1. Gervas J, Perez Fernández M. Aventuras y desventuras de los navegantes solitarios en el Mar de la Incertidumbre. Aten Primaria 2005;35(2):95-8.
2. Alam R, Cheraghi-Sohi S, Panagioti M, Esmali A, Campbell, S & Panagopoulou E. Managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care: a systematic critical review. BMC Fam Pract 2017; 18,79.
3. Schiavoni KH, Lehmann LS, Guan W, Rosenthal M, Sequist TD & Chien AT. How primary care physicians integrate price information into clinical decision-making. Intern Med J 2017; 32(1), 81-87.
4. Stanovich KE, West RF. Individual differences in reasoning: implications for the rationality debate. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 2000; 23:645-665
5. De Vries, Witteman C, Holland RW, Dijksterhuis A. The unconscious thought effect in clinical decision making: an example in diagnosis. Med Decis Making 2010; 30:578–581.
6. Marewski JN, Gigerenzer G. Heuristic decision making in medicine. Dialogs in clinical neuroscience 2012; 14(1):77-89.
7. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases. Science 1974; 185:1124-1131
8. Woolley A, Kostopoulou O. Clinical Intuition in Family Medicine: More Than First Impressions. Ann Fam Med 2013; 11:60-66.
9. Gigerenzer G. Simply rational. Oxford University Press. Oxford.2015
10. Dijksterhuis A, Nordgren LF. A theory of unconscious thought. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2006; 1(2):95-10
11. Vadillo MA, Kostopoulou O & Shanks DR. Acritical review and meta-analysis of the unconscious thought effect in medical decision making. Front Psychol 2015; 6:636
12. Croskerry P, Singhal G & Mamede S. Cognitive debiasing 1: Origins of bias and theory of debiasing. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; ii58-ii64.
13. Croskerry P. The theory and practice of clinical decision-making. Can J Anesth 2005, 52, R1–R8.
14. Norman G, Dore K, Wood T, Young M, Gaissmaier W & Monteiro S. The etiology of diagnostic errors: A controlled trial of system 1 versus system 2 reasoning. Acad Med 2014; 89(2): 277-284.
15. Dhaliwal, G. Going with your gut. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 26, 107–109.
16. Trowbridge R, Dhaliwal G & Cosby K. Educational agenda for diagnostic error reduction. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: ii28–ii32.
17. Zwaan L, Monteiro S, Sherbino J, Ilgen J, Howey B & Norman G. Is bias in the eye of the beholder? A vignette study to assess recognition of cognitive biases in clinical case workups. BMJ Qual Saf 2017; 26: 104–110.
18. Singh H, Schiff G, Graber M, Onakpoya I & Thompson M. The global burden of diagnostic errors in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 1-11.
19. Hughes TM, Dossett LA, Hawley ST & Telem DA. Recognizing Heuristics and Bias in Clinical Decision-making. Annals of Surgery 2020; 271(5): 813-814.
20. Whelehan DF, Conlon KC & Ridgway PF. Medicine and heuristics: cognitive biases and medical decision-making. Ir J Med Sci 2000; 189: 1477–1484.
21. Kahneman D & Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica 1979; 47(2): 263-291.
22. Tversky A & Kahneman D. Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1989. (pp. 81-126).
23. Berner ES, Graber ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med 2008; 121:S2-S23
24. Minué S, Fernández-Aguilar C, Martín-Martín J & Fernández-Ajuria A. Effect of the use of heuristics on diagnostic error in Primary Care: Scoping review. Atención Primaria 2018, 52(3): 159-175.
25. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive Biases and Heuristics in Medical Decision Making: A Critical Review Using a Systematic Search Strategy. Med Decis Making 2015; 35:539–57
26. Minué S, Bermúdez-Tamayo C, Fernández A, Martín-Martín J, Benites V, Melguizo M & Montoro R. Identification of factors associated with diagnostic error in primary care. BMC Fam. Pract 2014, 15(1): 92.
27. Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C, van der Wal G, Timmermans DRM. Design of a study on suboptimal cognitive acts in the diagnostic process, the effect on patient outcomes and the influence ok workload, fatigue and experience of physician. BMC Health Services Reasearch 2009; 9:65
28. Stolper E, Van Bokhoven M, Houben P, Van Royen P, Van de Wiel M, Van der Weijden T et al. The diagnostic role of gut feelings in general practice A focus group study of the concept and its determinants. BMC Family Practice 2009, 10:17
29. Kostopoulou O, Sirota M, Round T, Samaranayaka S, Delaney BC. The Role of Physicians’ First Impressions in the Diagnosis of Possible Cancers without Alarm Symptoms. Med Decis Making 2017; 37:9–16
30. Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow. Madrid: Debate; 2012
31. Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR. Improving diagnosis in medicine. Washington: National Academy of sciences, 2015.
32. Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2016; 16:138
33. Elstein AS. What goes around comes around: the return of the hypothetico-deductive strategy. Teach Learn Med 1994; 6: 121.
34. Kostopoulou O, Rosen A & Round T. Early diagnostic suggestions improve accuracy of GPs: a randomised controlled trial using computer simulated patients. Br J Gen Pract 2015; 65: e49–e54.
35. Knottnerus J. Medical decisión making by Geeneral Practitioners and Specialists. Fam Pract 1991,8:305-7
36. Zwaan L, Thijs A, Wagner C, van der Wal G, Timmermans DRM. Relating faults in diagnostic reasoning with diagnostic errors and patient harm. Acad Med 2012; 87:149-156
37. Starfield B, Shi L & Macinko J. Contribution of Primary Care to Health Systems and Health. The Milbank Quarterly 2005; 83 (3): 457–502.
38. Gigerenzer G & Graissmaaier W. Heuristic Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology 2008; 62(1): 451-82.
39. Klein G. A naturalistic decision-making perspective on studying intuitive decision making. J Appl Res Mem Cogn J 2015; 4(3): 164-168.
- Acknowledgments: The authors received funding for the study
from the Health Research Fund of the Ministry of Economy and
Competitiveness (PI10/01468 and PI13/01175).
- Ethical approval statement: The project was approved by the
Regional Research Ethics Commission of the Granada and Madrid
provinces. Each participating patient gave their authorization to
participate in the research project through the corresponding informed
consent, as well as each of the doctors.
- Data Availability Statement: The data that support the
findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding
author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical
restrictions.
- Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that no conflict of
interest exists.
- Tables
- Figures
Figure 1. Diagnostic process diagram
Figure 2. Presence of the use of heuristics