戻る
「早戻しボタン」を押すと検索画面に戻ります。 [閉じる]

コーパス検索結果 (１語後でソート)

通し番号をクリックするとPubMedの該当ページを表示します
1 mated association between process faults and diagnostic error.
2 3.0%; 95% CI, 20.9%-25.3%) had experienced a diagnostic error.
3 e measure was percentage of total cases with diagnostic error.
4 one before referral, and the primary type of diagnostic error.
5 able tool for identifying FNS and sources of diagnostic error.
6  treatment, and two were excluded because of diagnostic error.
7  rare condition with serious consequences of diagnostic error.
8 of the Goldman criteria was used to classify diagnostic error.
9 , will reduce the healthcare costs of common diagnostic error.
10 rument, a validated instrument for detecting diagnostic error.
11 ual's true disease status in the presence of diagnostic error.
12 .86-44.0) were significantly associated with diagnostic error.
13 entified as a test that could mitigate these diagnostic errors.
14            Care should be exercised to avoid diagnostic errors.
15 en in multivariable models examining harmful diagnostic errors.
16 phy of a neuronal lesion is crucial to avoid diagnostic errors.
17 te thoracic trauma on CT is crucial to avoid diagnostic errors.
18 thology (ie, specificity) without increasing diagnostic errors.
19 ational tools for medical students to reduce diagnostic errors.
20 re diagnostic closure, an important cause of diagnostic errors.
21 es that have reinforced a serious issue with diagnostic errors.
22 ess, and considering diverse perspectives on diagnostic errors.
23 grades microvasculature images, resulting in diagnostic errors.
24 g an intussusception on ultrasound, may lead diagnostic errors.
25 yzed evaluations of interventions to prevent diagnostic errors.
26 bias, 11 reported interventions that reduced diagnostic errors.
27 tors for preventable or possibly preventable diagnostic errors.
28 kely the most harmful and expensive types of diagnostic errors.
29 dentify and prioritize strategies to prevent diagnostic errors.
30 ogist and sonographer are necessary to avoid diagnostic errors.
31              Detection of laboratory-related diagnostic errors.
32 (RAIs) can lead to excessive imaging use and diagnostic errors.
33  of clinically necessary recommendations and diagnostic errors.
34  with this finding are a potential source of diagnostic errors.
35            More women than men experienced a diagnostic error (11.7% vs 2.7%; p = 0.015, chi test).
36 6 unplanned ICU admissions and identified 18 diagnostic errors (7% of admissions).
37 ted tomography (CT) scan was the most common diagnostic error (73%).
38           Effective interventions to prevent diagnostic error among critically ill children should be
39 ociated harm and to clarify risk factors for diagnostic errors among the critically ill.
40 y, causes, consequences, and risk factors of diagnostic errors among unplanned ICU admissions.
41  diagnostic language as an important type of diagnostic error and found that this leads to delay in s
42 tories and physical examinations to minimize diagnostic error and improve patient care.
43 To examine the association between potential diagnostic error and outcomes, multivariable linear regr
44 ted method to grade corneal injury minimizes diagnostic errors and enhances translational application
45 ermine the prevalence and characteristics of diagnostic errors and identify factors associated with e
46 pt neuro-ophthalmology consultation prevents diagnostic errors and improves patient outcomes.
47 ce of the global medical community to reduce diagnostic errors and increase patient safety.
48 of infection is among the most commonly made diagnostic errors and is associated with increased morbi
49 ffuse midline gliomas, yet it often leads to diagnostic errors and may prompt unnecessary re-biopsies
50  limited evidence regarding the frequency of diagnostic errors and outcomes associated with them in e
51 procedural events, one was attributable to a diagnostic error, and one was attributable to a medicati
52 -acquired infections, falls, handoff errors, diagnostic errors, and surgical errors.
53 nstrating common cognitive biases leading to diagnostic errors, and we reflect on strategies that may
54                                              Diagnostic errors are a source of significant morbidity
55 ly disabled by diagnostic errors each year." Diagnostic errors are inaccurate assessments of a patien
56 ospective studies are few, as are studies of diagnostic errors arising from the clinical encounter an
57 serology is key to avoiding medically costly diagnostic errors, as well as to assuring properly infor
58                                              Diagnostic errors associated with adverse outcomes for p
59 mained independently associated with risk of diagnostic error both at admission (odds ratio, 5.18; 95
60 so significantly increases the likelihood of diagnostic errors, both by medical professionals and aut
61 anding experience, we were making occasional diagnostic errors by considering as affected subjects wh
62 epends on prevalence, and (2) that different diagnostic errors carry different clinical consequences.
63  the effectiveness of video- and paper-based diagnostic error case studies as teaching modalities for
64 were to examine its findings when applied to diagnostic error cases and to identify risk factors for
65                                 Among the 87 diagnostic error cases identified, 70% affected clinical
66 per-based (n = 56) materials presenting five diagnostic error cases of over 30-min duration.
67                                          All diagnostic error cases were caused by failures in histor
68             From each data source, potential diagnostic error cases were identified, and the followin
69               Among the subset identified as diagnostic error cases, we further analyzed patterns, co
70  pitfalls were identified and collected from diagnostic error cases.
71 ology (DA) contributed to 25 of the 49 (51%) diagnostic error cases.
72                                          One diagnostic error caused harm with a prolonged hospital s
73 trainees with a fundamental understanding of diagnostic errors, clinical reasoning, and cognitive bia
74 mprovement in self-perceived knowledge about diagnostic errors compared with those in the paper-based
75                                              Diagnostic errors contribute to patient harm, though few
76  Interns also made 5.6 times as many serious diagnostic errors during the traditional schedule as dur
77 tive estimate that 5% of adults experience a diagnostic error each year, and that most people will ex
78 Americans die or are permanently disabled by diagnostic errors each year." Diagnostic errors are inac
79  a biopsy sample, posing as major sources of diagnostic error for pathologists.
80     Progress in understanding and preventing diagnostic errors has been modest.
81 ic cardiology, the domain of imaging-related diagnostic errors has received little attention.
82                                    The k for diagnostic error identification was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.821-
83  (95% CI, 14.2-30.3) with similar sources of diagnostic error identified.
84  the prevalence and documented sources of ED diagnostic error in FNS cases among confirmed stroke pat
85                             The frequency of diagnostic error in patients who have a lung mass and a
86 improvement initiatives that aim to decrease diagnostic error in pediatric echocardiography.
87 sent an enriched population for the study of diagnostic error in the ED.
88  that evaluated any intervention to decrease diagnostic errors in any clinical setting and with any s
89                        In this cohort study, diagnostic errors in hospitalized adults who died or wer
90          Unadjusted analysis identified more diagnostic errors in patients with atypical presentation
91                                    Potential diagnostic errors in the emergency department (ED).
92 hile missed fractures represent up to 80% of diagnostic errors in the emergency department.
93 de knowledge and tools that may help prevent diagnostic errors in the future.
94 ry to develop effective strategies to reduce diagnostic errors in the PICU.
95 italizations with an ED discharge (potential diagnostic error) in the preceding 9 days was calculated
96 ocused on a reduction in both procedural and diagnostic error is the number one concern of the United
97                                       Common diagnostic errors leading to ineffective treatment inclu
98 hat radiologists may incur in the event of a diagnostic error made by combined radiologist-artificial
99                                              Diagnostic errors made during triage at nontrauma center
100                                              Diagnostic errors may be an underappreciated source of I
101 use they may mimic malignancies, and serious diagnostic errors may result.
102 logic conditions among several categories of diagnostic error (missed, wrong, or ambiguous), error ty
103                              Knowledge about diagnostic errors, motivation, and provider responsibili
104  2 trained clinicians to determine whether a diagnostic error occurred (ie, missed or delayed diagnos
105 s who made final consensus determinations of diagnostic error occurrence.
106  admission was independently associated with diagnostic error (odds ratio, 5.73; 95% CI, 1.72-19.01).
107 alysis, compared with clinicians, the OR for diagnostic error of ML models was 0.79 (95% CI, 0.48-1.3
108 n was developed to assess the effects of mis-diagnostic errors on GWAS.
109 examining process faults associated with any diagnostic error, patient assessment problems (aPAF, 21.
110 ritically ill children should be informed by diagnostic error prevalence and etiologies.
111  to immersive learning style, application of diagnostic error process, and considering diverse perspe
112 istic combinations, and more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to procalcitonin in all t
113  this background use, the adjusted potential diagnostic error rate was 3.2% (95% CI, 3.1%-3.3%) for a
114 ncy hospitalizations, the adjusted potential diagnostic error rate was modest overall but varied by c
115                                  Analyses of diagnostic error rates adjusting for the effects of case
116                                   Background Diagnostic error rates for detecting small lung nodules
117 dies have suggested relatively high clinical diagnostic error rates for PD and essential tremor.
118                              Opportunity for diagnostic error reduction associated with each fault wa
119 e of contributory factors and prevention for diagnostic errors related to the performance of procedur
120 verall, the review showed a growing field of diagnostic error research and categorized and identified
121 25.1%) had the highest opportunity to reduce diagnostic errors; similar ranking was seen in multivari
122                       Limited information on diagnostic error, symptoms, timing of presentation, lesi
123                                            A diagnostic error taxonomy and knowledge of risk factors
124 ations can be challenging, which can lead to diagnostic error that not only has an impact on individu
125                    These cases emphasize the diagnostic errors that can occur if mycobacterial suscep
126                                              Diagnostic errors that harm patients are typically the r
127         A total of 181 claims (59%) involved diagnostic errors that harmed patients.
128                             Whether or not a diagnostic error took place, the frequency of underlying
129 osis and treatment similar to cases of frank diagnostic error (traditional DE).
130   Of 882 patient admissions, 13 (1.5%) had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission.
131    Among critically ill children, 1.5% had a diagnostic error up to 7 days after PICU admission.
132                                     Apparent diagnostic errors using a new biomarker may be a reflect
133                           Having a potential diagnostic error was associated with higher adjusted 30-
134 9%-19.8%); among the 1863 patients who died, diagnostic error was judged to have contributed to death
135 ademic cornea and external disease practice, diagnostic error was predominantly localized to the hist
136                                    Potential diagnostic error was the exposure, and the models were a
137 ED visit rate, an adjusted rate of potential diagnostic errors was calculated by subtracting the rate
138                   The most common sources of diagnostic error were the physical examination (36%), ge
139 tion, and provider responsibility beliefs of diagnostic errors were assessed pre- and post-interventi
140                                              Diagnostic errors were associated with atypical presenta
141                                    Potential diagnostic errors were associated with worse outcomes fo
142                                          The diagnostic errors were classified in two categories: cla
143                                              Diagnostic errors were identified at a high-volume acade
144  with direct impact on therapy, and class II diagnostic errors which comprised major unexpected findi
145                                              Diagnostic errors, which can negatively impact patient o
146  balancing the benefits and harms of various diagnostic errors, which were applied using reinforcemen
147              We developed a new taxonomy for diagnostic errors within pediatric echocardiography that
148 e preceded by an ED discharge (ie, potential diagnostic error) within 9 days.

 
Page Top