Clinical experience shows inconsistent effects on Bayesian reasoning, with research experience helping and newly qualified doctors sometimes more accurate¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Two studies found no effect of experience (medical students vs qualified doctors) and one found no influence of age, while one found newly qualified doctors more accurate (29% vs 15%) and two found research experience improved estimation. → Whiting Penny F 2015

Evidence¶

Whiting Penny F 2015¶

Whiting Penny F, Davenport Clare, Jameson Catherine, Burke Margaret, Sterne Jonathan A C, Hyde Chris, Ben-Shlomo Yoav. (2015). How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4521525/

q2 · i? · review · r3

Narrative synthesis of studies examining clinical experience, profession and academic training effects on Bayesian reasoning. The review reports two studies found no experience effect, one found no age influence, one found newly qualified doctors more accurate (29% vs 15%), and two found research experience improved estimation.

"One study found that a greater proportion of newly qualified doctors were more accurate in their estimation of post-test probability (29%) compared with more experienced doctors with or without an academic affiliation (15%)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Emergency department clinical experience is associated with more accurate junior doctor plain trauma X-ray interpretation — related
• Structured training improves junior doctor plain trauma X-ray interpretation accuracy — related
• Health professionals' estimation of post-test probability is generally poor with a tendency to overestimation — related