No abstract

Background Much of the decision-making in orthopaedics rests on uncertain evidence. Uncertainty is therefore part of our normal daily practice, and yet physician uncertainty regarding treatment could diminish patients' health. It is not known if physician uncertainty is a function of the evidence alone or if other factors are involved. With added experience, uncertainty could be expected to diminish, but perhaps more influential are things like physician confidence, belief in the veracity of what is published, and even one's religious beliefs. In addition, it is plausible that the kind of practice a physician works in can affect the experience of uncertainty. Practicing physicians may not be immediately aware of these effects on how uncertainty is experienced in their clinical decisionmaking. Questions/purposes We asked: (1) Does uncertainty and overconfidence bias decrease with years of practice? (2) What sociodemographic factors are independently associated with less recognition of uncertainty, in particular belief in God or other deity or deities, and how is atheism associated with recognition of uncertainty? (3) Do confidence bias (confidence that one's skill is greater than it actually is), degree of trust in the orthopaedic evidence, and degree of statistical sophistication correlate independently with recognition of uncertainty? Methods We created a survey to establish an overall recognition of uncertainty score (four questions), trust in the orthopaedic evidence base (four questions), confidence bias (three questions), and statistical understanding (six questions). Seven hundred six members of the Science of Variation Group, a collaboration that aims to study variation in the definition and treatment of human illness, were approached to complete our survey. This group represents One of the authors (DR) certifies that he, or a member of his immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, an amount of less than USD 10,000 during the study period from Wright Medical (Memphis, TN, USA); an amount less than USD 10,000 from Skeletal Dynamics (Miami, FL, USA); an amount less than USD 10,000 from Biomet (Warsaw, IN, USA); an amount less than USD 10,000 from AO North America (Paoli, PA, USA); and an amount less than USD 10,000 from AO International (Dubendorf, Switzerland Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ®A Publication of The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® mainly orthopaedic surgeons specializing in trauma or hand and wrist surgery, practicing in Europe and North America, of whom the majority is involved in teaching. Approximately half of the group has more than 10 years of experience. Two hundred forty-two (34%) members completed the survey. We found no differences between responders and nonresponders. Each survey item measured its own trait better than any of the other traits. Recognition of uncertainty (0.70) and confidence bias (0.75) had relatively high Cronbach alpha levels, meaning that the questions making up these traits are closely related and probably measure the ...

Introduction: Cognitive biases are known to affect all aspects of human decision-making and reasoning. Examples include misjudgment of probability, preferential attention to evidence that confirms one's beliefs, and preference for certainty. It is not known whether cognitive biases influence orthopaedic surgeon decision-making. This study measured the influence of a few cognitive biases on orthopaedic decision-making in hypothetical vignettes. The questions we addressed were as follows: Do orthopaedic surgeons display the cognitive biases of base rate neglect and confirmation bias in hypothetical vignettes? Can anchoring and framing biases be demonstrated? Methods: One hundred ninety-six orthopaedic surgeons completed a survey consisting of three vignettes evaluating base rate neglect, five evaluating confirmation bias, and two separate vignettes each randomly exposing half of the group to different anchors and frames. Results: For the three vignettes evaluating base rate neglect, 43% (84 of 196) chose answers consistent with base rate neglect in vignette 1, 88% (173 of 196) in vignette 2, and 35% (69 of 196) in vignette 3. Regarding confirmation bias, 51% (100 of 196) chose an answer consistent with confirmation bias for vignette 1, 11% (22 of 196) for vignette 2, 22% (43 of 196) for vignette 3, 22% (44 of 196) for vignette 4, and 29% (56 of 196) for vignette 5. There was a measurable anchoring heuristic (56% versus 34%; a difference of 22%) and framing effect (77% versus 61%; a difference of 16%). Conclusion: The influence of cognitive biases can be documented in patient vignettes presented to orthopaedic surgeons. Strategies can anticipate cognitive bias and develop practice debiasing strategies to limit potential error.