Diagnostic errors in abdominal pain: a secondary analysis of case reports.

IF 1.9 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Diagnosis Pub Date : 2026-03-12 eCollection Date: 2026-05-01 DOI:10.1515/dx-2025-0185
Taku Harada, Yukinori Harada, Kotaro Kunitomo, Takashi Watari, Taro Shimizu
{"title":"Diagnostic errors in abdominal pain: a secondary analysis of case reports.","authors":"Taku Harada, Yukinori Harada, Kotaro Kunitomo, Takashi Watari, Taro Shimizu","doi":"10.1515/dx-2025-0185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Diagnostic errors remain common in abdominal pain, a frequent yet challenging presentation. We sought to compare diagnostic error profiles between abdominal and non-abdominal pain and to identify abdominal pain-specific, potentially modifiable targets in physical examination, diagnostic testing, and differential diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of a systematically coded database of diagnostic error case reports. Adult pain cases were categorized as abdominal or non-abdominal after excluding pediatric and non-pain cases. Errors were classified using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER), Reliable Diagnosis Challenges (RDC), and Generic Diagnostic Pitfalls (GDP) taxonomies. Frequencies of codes and contributing factors were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 163 cases, 55 involved abdominal pain and 108 non-abdominal pain. The abdominal pain group had more RDC codes per case (3.1 ± 1.8 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7; p=0.032). Misinterpretation of physical findings and diagnostic tests, particularly imaging, was more common. Presentations with non-specific features or findings that masked/mimicked other conditions were also more frequent. Most physical examination errors (78 %) and imaging errors (82 %) reflected misinterpretation rather than underordering.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Diagnostic errors in abdominal pain often involve misinterpreting physical and imaging findings and difficulty distinguishing among diseases within the correct organ system. Strengthening bedside diagnostic skills, fostering structured comparison of same-organ differential diagnoses, and ensuring reliable radiology support may reduce these errors and enhance patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":11273,"journal":{"name":"Diagnosis","volume":" ","pages":"207-215"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnosis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2025-0185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Diagnostic errors remain common in abdominal pain, a frequent yet challenging presentation. We sought to compare diagnostic error profiles between abdominal and non-abdominal pain and to identify abdominal pain-specific, potentially modifiable targets in physical examination, diagnostic testing, and differential diagnosis.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective secondary analysis of a systematically coded database of diagnostic error case reports. Adult pain cases were categorized as abdominal or non-abdominal after excluding pediatric and non-pain cases. Errors were classified using the Diagnostic Error Evaluation and Research (DEER), Reliable Diagnosis Challenges (RDC), and Generic Diagnostic Pitfalls (GDP) taxonomies. Frequencies of codes and contributing factors were compared.

Results: Of 163 cases, 55 involved abdominal pain and 108 non-abdominal pain. The abdominal pain group had more RDC codes per case (3.1 ± 1.8 vs. 2.5 ± 1.7; p=0.032). Misinterpretation of physical findings and diagnostic tests, particularly imaging, was more common. Presentations with non-specific features or findings that masked/mimicked other conditions were also more frequent. Most physical examination errors (78 %) and imaging errors (82 %) reflected misinterpretation rather than underordering.

Conclusions: Diagnostic errors in abdominal pain often involve misinterpreting physical and imaging findings and difficulty distinguishing among diseases within the correct organ system. Strengthening bedside diagnostic skills, fostering structured comparison of same-organ differential diagnoses, and ensuring reliable radiology support may reduce these errors and enhance patient safety.

腹痛的诊断错误:对病例报告的二次分析。
目的:诊断错误仍然是常见的腹痛,一个频繁但具有挑战性的表现。我们试图比较腹部和非腹部疼痛的诊断错误概况,并在体格检查、诊断测试和鉴别诊断中确定腹痛特异性、潜在可修改的目标。方法:我们对诊断错误病例报告的系统编码数据库进行回顾性二次分析。在排除儿童和非疼痛病例后,将成人疼痛病例分为腹部或非腹部。使用诊断错误评估和研究(DEER)、可靠诊断挑战(RDC)和通用诊断缺陷(GDP)分类法对错误进行分类。比较了编码频率和影响因素。结果:163例患者中腹痛55例,非腹痛108例。腹痛组每例RDC编码数较多(3.1±1.8比2.5±1.7;p=0.032)。对物理检查结果和诊断检查,特别是影像学检查的误解更为常见。具有非特异性特征的表现或掩盖/模仿其他情况的发现也更常见。大多数体格检查错误(78 %)和影像学错误(82 %)反映的是误解,而不是排序不足。结论:腹痛的诊断错误通常包括对身体和影像学表现的误解,以及难以区分正确器官系统内的疾病。加强床边诊断技能,促进同器官鉴别诊断的结构化比较,并确保可靠的放射学支持,可以减少这些错误,提高患者安全。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnosis
Diagnosis MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
5.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Diagnosis focuses on how diagnosis can be advanced, how it is taught, and how and why it can fail, leading to diagnostic errors. The journal welcomes both fundamental and applied works, improvement initiatives, opinions, and debates to encourage new thinking on improving this critical aspect of healthcare quality.  Topics: -Factors that promote diagnostic quality and safety -Clinical reasoning -Diagnostic errors in medicine -The factors that contribute to diagnostic error: human factors, cognitive issues, and system-related breakdowns -Improving the value of diagnosis – eliminating waste and unnecessary testing -How culture and removing blame promote awareness of diagnostic errors -Training and education related to clinical reasoning and diagnostic skills -Advances in laboratory testing and imaging that improve diagnostic capability -Local, national and international initiatives to reduce diagnostic error
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书