Dawson N V, Arkes H R, Siciliano C, Blinkhorn R, Lakshmanan M, Petrelli M
Department of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland Metropolitan General Hospital 44109.
Med Decis Making. 1988 Oct-Dec;8(4):259-64. doi: 10.1177/0272989X8800800406.
Although clinicopathologic conferences (CPCs) have been valued for teaching differential diagnosis, their instructional value may be compromised by hindsight bias. This bias occurs when those who know the actual diagnosis overestimate the likelihood that they would have been able to predict the correct diagnosis had they been asked to do so beforehand. Evidence for the presence of the hindsight bias was sought among 160 physicians and trainees attending four CPCs. Before the correct diagnosis was announced, half of the conference audience estimated the probability that each of five possible diagnoses was correct (foresight subjects). After the correct diagnosis was announced the remaining (hindsight) subjects estimated the probability they would have assigned to each of the five possible diagnoses had they been making the initial differential diagnosis. Only 30% of the foresight subjects ranked the correct diagnosis as first, versus 50% of the hindsight subjects (p less than 0.02). Although less experienced physicians consistently demonstrated the hindsight bias, more experienced physicians succumbed only on easier cases.
