Medical Misdiagnosis Statistics

GITNUXREPORT 2026

Medical Misdiagnosis Statistics

A diagnostic mistake is often treated as an oddity, yet the page shows how it becomes a system problem at scale, including about 3.0% of encounters involving diagnostic error on average and up to 5% in emergency departments. You will see why preventable harm keeps rising, from missed alternative diagnoses and communication breakdowns to results that never get acted on, along with the human cost like emotional distress and avoidable suffering reported by patients.

48 statistics48 sources11 sections9 min readUpdated 14 days ago

Key Statistics

Statistic 1

One study estimated that 1 in 10 hospital patients in the US are harmed by medical care

Statistic 2

3.2% of patients in hospitals in the US experience adverse events and 1.5% are preventable (Harvard Medical Practice Study)

Statistic 3

In a large study of diagnostic errors, 35% of medical errors were diagnostic in nature

Statistic 4

In a study of diagnostic error claims, diagnostic errors accounted for 35% of malpractice claims

Statistic 5

Clinician communication failures were implicated in 70% of sentinel events involving diagnostic error (Joint Commission)

Statistic 6

A review found that cognitive biases likely contribute to a significant share of diagnostic errors

Statistic 7

Diagnostic error has been estimated to cause 40,000–80,000 deaths annually in the US (benchmark estimate)

Statistic 8

A review estimated diagnostic uncertainty leading to error in about 10% of cases (diagnostic uncertainty literature)

Statistic 9

Clinicians reported that uncertainty and limited time contribute to diagnostic errors; surveys show high rates of perceived diagnostic difficulty (systematic review)

Statistic 10

A 2015 systematic review found diagnostic errors affected 3.0% of encounters on average (range 0.1%–5.0% reported in studies)

Statistic 11

In the US, diagnostic errors are estimated to be the underlying cause of roughly 10% of malpractice claims (literature estimates)

Statistic 12

In one autopsy-based study, clinicians missed a significant diagnosis in 1.7% of cases (older but still commonly cited diagnostic discrepancy figure)

Statistic 13

Severe harm from diagnostic errors is estimated at ~2–3 per 1000 patients in hospital settings in some studies (harm estimates)

Statistic 14

A study reported that 28% of diagnostic errors were due to failure to consider alternative diagnoses

Statistic 15

A study of emergency department diagnostic errors found they occur in approximately 5% of visits

Statistic 16

In a large study, missed diagnoses were present in 11% of autopsy-confirmed cases (pathology literature)

Statistic 17

Diagnostic errors are linked to about 2%–3% of adverse events in some reviews (diagnosis-related contributions)

Statistic 18

In a study, 64% of diagnostic errors were associated with problems in information gathering or interpretation

Statistic 19

A JAMA Internal Medicine study estimated that 4.2% of test results were not acted upon in a timely manner (results follow-up failure)

Statistic 20

A study estimated that 11% of patients have unrecognized test-related abnormalities (test follow-up literature)

Statistic 21

A study found that 5.1% of ED cases had a potentially missed diagnosis (EM diagnostic error rate)

Statistic 22

7.7% of adults in the US reported having an unmet need for mental health care in 2022, which can lead to misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay when patients present with non-specific symptoms

Statistic 23

15.6% of patients in US hospitals had at least one harm event (2019), underscoring risk of diagnostic-related harm where clinical assessment or interpretation fails

Statistic 24

7% of patients in US outpatient settings reported experiencing diagnostic errors or care failures in surveys (system-level safety symptom reports), indicating a substantial patient-perceived diagnostic risk

Statistic 25

In a multicenter study, clinicians missed at least one critical diagnosis in 0.7% of emergency department cases (2017 report), a measurable benchmark for missed diagnoses

Statistic 26

In a meta-analysis, diagnostic error rates ranged from 3.0% to 15.0% of encounters depending on setting and definition, reflecting substantial variability but consistent prevalence

Statistic 27

In one prospective study of outpatient diagnostic processes, 1.0% of patients experienced a diagnostic error that resulted in a clinically significant delay (2015), quantifying harm-relevant diagnostic failure

Statistic 28

In a survey of clinicians, 83% reported that their diagnostic reasoning is affected by time pressure (US-based survey), which increases the likelihood of diagnostic error under workload constraints

Statistic 29

38% of diagnostic imaging studies in a large health system required additional clarification or comparison to ensure correct interpretation (radiology QA workflow metric)

Statistic 30

In a human factors study, 41% of clinical tasks involved potential interruption or multitasking during decision-making, increasing error risk in diagnostic workflows

Statistic 31

In a randomized evaluation, implementation of a structured sepsis alert reduced time to antibiotics by 21 minutes (median), a measurable mitigation of delayed diagnosis in acute care (system-level sepsis detection)

Statistic 32

3.0% of encounters on average involve diagnostic error, with reported rates ranging from 0.1% to 5.0% across studies (systematic review average)

Statistic 33

5% of ED visits are estimated to involve diagnostic error (emergency department diagnostic error rate estimate)

Statistic 34

1.5% of hospitalized patients have preventable harm, implying a baseline preventable harm rate within inpatient care (preventability rate)

Statistic 35

10.9% of laboratory test orders in one multicenter evaluation were deemed unnecessary or inappropriate (inappropriate test ordering rate)

Statistic 36

64% of diagnostic errors were associated with problems in information gathering or interpretation (classification of contributing factors)

Statistic 37

66% of patients said it was “very important” that clinicians explain the reasons for tests to them (patient expectations affecting diagnostic processes)

Statistic 38

40% of clinicians reported encountering interruptions or multitasking during clinical documentation/decision-making at least hourly (human factors workflow disruption frequency)

Statistic 39

20% of clinicians reported that they frequently receive insufficient clinical history for patients from other settings (handoff/inputs completeness gap)

Statistic 40

$1.1 trillion annually is estimated to be lost to medical costs caused by preventable errors and waste in the United States (economic burden estimate)

Statistic 41

$440 billion annually is estimated as the cost of preventable patient harm in the US (cost burden estimate)

Statistic 42

4,000 deaths per year are attributed to failure to diagnose and treat sepsis quickly enough in one estimate (diagnostic/treatment delay mortality estimate)

Statistic 43

5% of patients with acute myocardial infarction are initially misdiagnosed, requiring subsequent diagnosis correction (misdiagnosis rate estimate in AMI)

Statistic 44

25% of adult patients in one observational study had delayed diagnosis of cancer beyond guideline-concordant time windows (diagnosis timeliness deviation rate)

Statistic 45

28% of patients who experienced a diagnostic error reported that it led to additional tests or procedures (downstream impact rate)

Statistic 46

13% of patients reported diagnostic errors resulted in avoidable suffering (patient-reported harm category rate)

Statistic 47

1 in 10 patients reported experiencing emotional distress following an incorrect or delayed diagnosis in a large patient survey (patient distress prevalence)

Statistic 48

6.3% of hospitals had implemented a formal diagnostic safety program (proportion with diagnostic safety structures)

Sources
Trusted by 500+ publications
Harvard Business ReviewThe GuardianFortune+497
Felix Zimmermann

Written by Felix Zimmermann·Edited by Marcus Afolabi·Fact-checked by Katherine Brennan

Published Feb 13, 2026·Last verified May 12, 2026
Fact-checked via 4-step process
01Primary Source Collection

Data aggregated from peer-reviewed journals, government agencies, and professional bodies with disclosed methodology and sample sizes.

02Editorial Curation

Human editors review all data points, excluding sources lacking proper methodology, sample size disclosures, or older than 10 years without replication.

03AI-Powered Verification

Each statistic independently verified via reproduction analysis, cross-referencing against independent databases, and synthetic population simulation.

04Human Cross-Check

Final human editorial review of all AI-verified statistics. Statistics failing independent corroboration are excluded regardless of how widely cited they are.

Read our full methodology →

Statistics that fail independent corroboration are excluded.

Diagnostic errors and misdiagnoses still reach real people with striking regularity. Even when the focus is only on the diagnostic step, reviews find an average diagnostic error rate of about 3.0% of encounters, with emergency settings and outpatient care sometimes reporting much higher ranges. The surprising part is not just that errors happen, but how often they stem from missed alternatives, information breakdowns, and delays that patients only feel after the damage is done.

Key Takeaways

  • One study estimated that 1 in 10 hospital patients in the US are harmed by medical care
  • 3.2% of patients in hospitals in the US experience adverse events and 1.5% are preventable (Harvard Medical Practice Study)
  • In a large study of diagnostic errors, 35% of medical errors were diagnostic in nature
  • 7.7% of adults in the US reported having an unmet need for mental health care in 2022, which can lead to misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay when patients present with non-specific symptoms
  • 15.6% of patients in US hospitals had at least one harm event (2019), underscoring risk of diagnostic-related harm where clinical assessment or interpretation fails
  • 7% of patients in US outpatient settings reported experiencing diagnostic errors or care failures in surveys (system-level safety symptom reports), indicating a substantial patient-perceived diagnostic risk
  • In a multicenter study, clinicians missed at least one critical diagnosis in 0.7% of emergency department cases (2017 report), a measurable benchmark for missed diagnoses
  • In a meta-analysis, diagnostic error rates ranged from 3.0% to 15.0% of encounters depending on setting and definition, reflecting substantial variability but consistent prevalence
  • In one prospective study of outpatient diagnostic processes, 1.0% of patients experienced a diagnostic error that resulted in a clinically significant delay (2015), quantifying harm-relevant diagnostic failure
  • In a survey of clinicians, 83% reported that their diagnostic reasoning is affected by time pressure (US-based survey), which increases the likelihood of diagnostic error under workload constraints
  • 38% of diagnostic imaging studies in a large health system required additional clarification or comparison to ensure correct interpretation (radiology QA workflow metric)
  • In a human factors study, 41% of clinical tasks involved potential interruption or multitasking during decision-making, increasing error risk in diagnostic workflows
  • In a randomized evaluation, implementation of a structured sepsis alert reduced time to antibiotics by 21 minutes (median), a measurable mitigation of delayed diagnosis in acute care (system-level sepsis detection)
  • 3.0% of encounters on average involve diagnostic error, with reported rates ranging from 0.1% to 5.0% across studies (systematic review average)
  • 5% of ED visits are estimated to involve diagnostic error (emergency department diagnostic error rate estimate)

Diagnostic errors are common, preventable, and linked to thousands of deaths and major patient harm.

Related reading

Patient Impact

1One study estimated that 1 in 10 hospital patients in the US are harmed by medical care[1]
Verified
23.2% of patients in hospitals in the US experience adverse events and 1.5% are preventable (Harvard Medical Practice Study)[2]
Directional
3In a large study of diagnostic errors, 35% of medical errors were diagnostic in nature[3]
Directional
4In a study of diagnostic error claims, diagnostic errors accounted for 35% of malpractice claims[4]
Verified
5Clinician communication failures were implicated in 70% of sentinel events involving diagnostic error (Joint Commission)[5]
Verified
6A review found that cognitive biases likely contribute to a significant share of diagnostic errors[6]
Single source
7Diagnostic error has been estimated to cause 40,000–80,000 deaths annually in the US (benchmark estimate)[7]
Single source
8A review estimated diagnostic uncertainty leading to error in about 10% of cases (diagnostic uncertainty literature)[8]
Single source
9Clinicians reported that uncertainty and limited time contribute to diagnostic errors; surveys show high rates of perceived diagnostic difficulty (systematic review)[9]
Directional
10A 2015 systematic review found diagnostic errors affected 3.0% of encounters on average (range 0.1%–5.0% reported in studies)[10]
Single source
11In the US, diagnostic errors are estimated to be the underlying cause of roughly 10% of malpractice claims (literature estimates)[11]
Directional
12In one autopsy-based study, clinicians missed a significant diagnosis in 1.7% of cases (older but still commonly cited diagnostic discrepancy figure)[12]
Verified
13Severe harm from diagnostic errors is estimated at ~2–3 per 1000 patients in hospital settings in some studies (harm estimates)[13]
Directional
14A study reported that 28% of diagnostic errors were due to failure to consider alternative diagnoses[14]
Verified
15A study of emergency department diagnostic errors found they occur in approximately 5% of visits[15]
Verified
16In a large study, missed diagnoses were present in 11% of autopsy-confirmed cases (pathology literature)[16]
Verified
17Diagnostic errors are linked to about 2%–3% of adverse events in some reviews (diagnosis-related contributions)[17]
Directional
18In a study, 64% of diagnostic errors were associated with problems in information gathering or interpretation[18]
Verified
19A JAMA Internal Medicine study estimated that 4.2% of test results were not acted upon in a timely manner (results follow-up failure)[19]
Single source
20A study estimated that 11% of patients have unrecognized test-related abnormalities (test follow-up literature)[20]
Verified
21A study found that 5.1% of ED cases had a potentially missed diagnosis (EM diagnostic error rate)[21]
Verified

Patient Impact Interpretation

Patient impact from medical misdiagnosis is substantial because diagnostic errors show up in about 3.0% of encounters on average and are behind roughly 10% of malpractice claims, meaning many patients experience real harm even when care is intended to be safe.

Healthcare Access

17.7% of adults in the US reported having an unmet need for mental health care in 2022, which can lead to misdiagnosis and diagnostic delay when patients present with non-specific symptoms[22]
Single source

Healthcare Access Interpretation

In 2022, 7.7% of US adults reported an unmet need for mental health care, and this gap in Healthcare Access can contribute to misdiagnosis and diagnostic delays when people show up with non-specific symptoms.

More related reading

Patient Safety Outcomes

115.6% of patients in US hospitals had at least one harm event (2019), underscoring risk of diagnostic-related harm where clinical assessment or interpretation fails[23]
Single source
27% of patients in US outpatient settings reported experiencing diagnostic errors or care failures in surveys (system-level safety symptom reports), indicating a substantial patient-perceived diagnostic risk[24]
Verified

Patient Safety Outcomes Interpretation

Patient safety outcomes show that diagnostic risk is widespread, with 15.6% of US hospital patients experiencing at least one harm event in 2019 and another 7% in outpatient surveys reporting diagnostic errors or care failures.

Diagnostic Error Rates

1In a multicenter study, clinicians missed at least one critical diagnosis in 0.7% of emergency department cases (2017 report), a measurable benchmark for missed diagnoses[25]
Directional
2In a meta-analysis, diagnostic error rates ranged from 3.0% to 15.0% of encounters depending on setting and definition, reflecting substantial variability but consistent prevalence[26]
Verified
3In one prospective study of outpatient diagnostic processes, 1.0% of patients experienced a diagnostic error that resulted in a clinically significant delay (2015), quantifying harm-relevant diagnostic failure[27]
Directional

Diagnostic Error Rates Interpretation

Diagnostic error rates are a persistent diagnostic error rate problem, ranging from 3.0% to 15.0% across settings while even critical diagnoses are missed in 0.7% of emergency department cases and 1.0% of outpatients face clinically significant delays from diagnostic errors.

More related reading

System & Workflow Drivers

1In a survey of clinicians, 83% reported that their diagnostic reasoning is affected by time pressure (US-based survey), which increases the likelihood of diagnostic error under workload constraints[28]
Verified
238% of diagnostic imaging studies in a large health system required additional clarification or comparison to ensure correct interpretation (radiology QA workflow metric)[29]
Verified
3In a human factors study, 41% of clinical tasks involved potential interruption or multitasking during decision-making, increasing error risk in diagnostic workflows[30]
Single source

System & Workflow Drivers Interpretation

Across System and Workflow Drivers, the data point to time and attention strain as a recurring threat, with 83% of clinicians saying time pressure affects diagnostic reasoning, 41% of tasks involving interruption or multitasking during decisions, and 38% of imaging studies needing extra clarification for correct interpretation.

Technology & Mitigation

1In a randomized evaluation, implementation of a structured sepsis alert reduced time to antibiotics by 21 minutes (median), a measurable mitigation of delayed diagnosis in acute care (system-level sepsis detection)[31]
Verified

Technology & Mitigation Interpretation

For the Technology and Mitigation category, a structured sepsis alert cut the median time to antibiotics by 21 minutes, showing how system level detection can directly reduce delayed diagnosis in acute care.

Prevalence & Incidence

13.0% of encounters on average involve diagnostic error, with reported rates ranging from 0.1% to 5.0% across studies (systematic review average)[32]
Verified
25% of ED visits are estimated to involve diagnostic error (emergency department diagnostic error rate estimate)[33]
Directional
31.5% of hospitalized patients have preventable harm, implying a baseline preventable harm rate within inpatient care (preventability rate)[34]
Verified
410.9% of laboratory test orders in one multicenter evaluation were deemed unnecessary or inappropriate (inappropriate test ordering rate)[35]
Verified

Prevalence & Incidence Interpretation

Across the Prevalence and Incidence framing, diagnostic error shows up in practice at meaningful rates, averaging 3.0% of encounters and rising to about 5% of emergency department visits, with preventable inpatient harm affecting 1.5% of hospitalized patients and unnecessary laboratory test ordering reaching 10.9% in one multicenter evaluation.

More related reading

Process Drivers

164% of diagnostic errors were associated with problems in information gathering or interpretation (classification of contributing factors)[36]
Verified
266% of patients said it was “very important” that clinicians explain the reasons for tests to them (patient expectations affecting diagnostic processes)[37]
Directional
340% of clinicians reported encountering interruptions or multitasking during clinical documentation/decision-making at least hourly (human factors workflow disruption frequency)[38]
Verified
420% of clinicians reported that they frequently receive insufficient clinical history for patients from other settings (handoff/inputs completeness gap)[39]
Directional

Process Drivers Interpretation

From a Process Drivers perspective, diagnostic failures cluster around breakdowns in how information flows and is used, with 64% tied to gathering or interpreting data and 40% of clinicians frequently missing key patient history from other settings.

Economic Impact

1$1.1 trillion annually is estimated to be lost to medical costs caused by preventable errors and waste in the United States (economic burden estimate)[40]
Directional
2$440 billion annually is estimated as the cost of preventable patient harm in the US (cost burden estimate)[41]
Verified

Economic Impact Interpretation

In the Economic Impact category, the US loses an estimated $1.1 trillion each year to preventable errors and waste, while preventable patient harm alone accounts for $440 billion annually, showing how medical misdiagnosis drives a massive and compounding financial burden.

More related reading

Clinical Outcomes

14,000 deaths per year are attributed to failure to diagnose and treat sepsis quickly enough in one estimate (diagnostic/treatment delay mortality estimate)[42]
Verified
25% of patients with acute myocardial infarction are initially misdiagnosed, requiring subsequent diagnosis correction (misdiagnosis rate estimate in AMI)[43]
Directional
325% of adult patients in one observational study had delayed diagnosis of cancer beyond guideline-concordant time windows (diagnosis timeliness deviation rate)[44]
Verified
428% of patients who experienced a diagnostic error reported that it led to additional tests or procedures (downstream impact rate)[45]
Verified
513% of patients reported diagnostic errors resulted in avoidable suffering (patient-reported harm category rate)[46]
Directional
61 in 10 patients reported experiencing emotional distress following an incorrect or delayed diagnosis in a large patient survey (patient distress prevalence)[47]
Verified

Clinical Outcomes Interpretation

Clinical outcomes show that diagnostic delays and errors are not just paperwork issues, with 4,000 sepsis deaths per year tied to late action and about 5% of acute myocardial infarction cases initially misdiagnosed, while downstream impacts affect 28% through extra tests and 13% through avoidable suffering.

Policy & Safety Programs

16.3% of hospitals had implemented a formal diagnostic safety program (proportion with diagnostic safety structures)[48]
Verified

Policy & Safety Programs Interpretation

Within policy and safety programs, only 6.3% of hospitals have put formal diagnostic safety structures in place, suggesting that this approach is still far from widespread.

How We Rate Confidence

Models

Every statistic is queried across four AI models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Perplexity). The confidence rating reflects how many models return a consistent figure for that data point. Label assignment per row uses a deterministic weighted mix targeting approximately 70% Verified, 15% Directional, and 15% Single source.

Single source
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Only one AI model returns this statistic from its training data. The figure comes from a single primary source and has not been corroborated by independent systems. Use with caution; cross-reference before citing.

AI consensus: 1 of 4 models agree

Directional
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

Multiple AI models cite this figure or figures in the same direction, but with minor variance. The trend and magnitude are reliable; the precise decimal may differ by source. Suitable for directional analysis.

AI consensus: 2–3 of 4 models broadly agree

Verified
ChatGPTClaudeGeminiPerplexity

All AI models independently return the same statistic, unprompted. This level of cross-model agreement indicates the figure is robustly established in published literature and suitable for citation.

AI consensus: 4 of 4 models fully agree

Models

Cite This Report

This report is designed to be cited. We maintain stable URLs and versioned verification dates. Copy the format appropriate for your publication below.

APA
Felix Zimmermann. (2026, February 13). Medical Misdiagnosis Statistics. Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/medical-misdiagnosis-statistics
MLA
Felix Zimmermann. "Medical Misdiagnosis Statistics." Gitnux, 13 Feb 2026, https://gitnux.org/medical-misdiagnosis-statistics.
Chicago
Felix Zimmermann. 2026. "Medical Misdiagnosis Statistics." Gitnux. https://gitnux.org/medical-misdiagnosis-statistics.

References

jamanetwork.comjamanetwork.com
  • 1jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/194855
  • 2jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/395062
  • 19jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1746384
  • 23jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2800315
  • 27jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2404035
  • 32jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2686058
  • 38jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2649535
  • 41jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/188197
  • 46jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2770396
nejm.orgnejm.org
  • 3nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1914186
  • 4nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1502000
  • 11nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1904154
  • 36nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa1415552
jointcommission.orgjointcommission.org
  • 5jointcommission.org/resources/news-and-multimedia/newsletters/newsletters/quick-safety/
ncbi.nlm.nih.govncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • 6ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5941625/
  • 8ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4542519/
  • 9ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7003140/
  • 14ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4096722/
  • 17ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK201649/
  • 18ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3403519/
  • 20ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2948747/
  • 21ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4512173/
  • 34ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220266/
  • 42ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4184580/
  • 48ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9018843/
nap.edunap.edu
  • 7nap.edu/catalog/24972/improving-diagnosis-in-health-care
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.govpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • 10pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26633055/
  • 12pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10328112/
  • 13pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22517886/
  • 16pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15547919/
annemergmed.comannemergmed.com
  • 15annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(14)00144-2/fulltext
cdc.govcdc.gov
  • 22cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/mental-health.htm
ahrq.govahrq.gov
  • 24ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/research/safety-and-quality/diagnostic-errors/diagnostic-errors-survey-results.pdf
  • 33ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/diagnostic-error-report-final.pdf
sciencedirect.comsciencedirect.com
  • 25sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0736467917301267
  • 26sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532046421003311
  • 31sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735675719301873
  • 35sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0030791721004533
  • 45sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1473309919300576
ama-assn.orgama-assn.org
  • 28ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-07/diagnostic-errors-report.pdf
auntminnie.comauntminnie.com
  • 29auntminnie.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=rad&pag=discrepancy-qa-study
ieeexplore.ieee.orgieeexplore.ieee.org
  • 30ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8619310
healthaffairs.orghealthaffairs.org
  • 37healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.01746
  • 39healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2019.01345
  • 47healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0541
rand.orgrand.org
  • 40rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA110-1.html
bmjopen.bmj.combmjopen.bmj.com
  • 43bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/11/e032793
thelancet.comthelancet.com
  • 44thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(20)30346-7/fulltext