ArticleScientific reports2025
Influence of race and gender on variability in clinical decision-making in neurology.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Disparities in outcomes have been reported in numerous neurologic diseases. Examining clinical decision-making patterns and behaviors can inform points of intervention to improve disease management and outcomes. This experimental vignette study sought to measure the effects of race (Black, White) and gender (female, male) on variation in clinical decision-making for remitting-relapsing multiple sclerosis (RRMS), primary progressive MS (PPMS), stroke, Parkinson disease, and epilepsy. A factorial survey study using five clinical vignettes was distributed to neurologists in the United States. Race and gender were randomly modified across all vignettes. Correct diagnoses for each vignette were the main outcome and additional outcomes included response time and planned next steps (as a proxy of certainty). 621 neurologists completed the study. Participants consistently diagnosed stroke correctly, independent of race/gender variant. However, we noted some variability for the other conditions. RRMS was correctly diagnosed among White female vignettes 89% of the time, compared to 81-82% for the other vignette types (p = 0.13). For PPMS vignettes, females were more likely to be correctly diagnosed than males, and White vignettes more likely to be correctly diagnosed than Black vignettes. We observed some variability in treatment initiation as the specified next step across vignettes, as well as response time. We found that diagnosis and certainty varied by race and gender. The extent to which frequency of correct diagnosis varied suggests uncertainty and reliance upon the epidemiologic knowledge base, particularly as the distribution of correct diagnoses corresponds with the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.