Download PDFPDF
Diagnostic error among vulnerable populations presenting to the emergency department with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular or neurological symptoms: a systematic review
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    A Poor Statistical Approach is Better than Not Having an Approach
    • Shayan Majidi, General Practitioner Student Research Committee, Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran

    Dear BMJ Quality and Safety,

    Having perused the article titled "Diagnostic error among vulnerable populations presenting to the emergency department with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular or neurological symptoms: a systematic review," I found it captivating and of great significance. The notion behind this study is quite innovative, as it tackles the concerns of policymakers who worry about the potential to erroneously misdiagnose emergency patients, who indeed are in the most need of care. I firmly believe that this article will provide invaluable insights into a topic that greatly interests a wide audience.

    Given my keen interest in this study, and to enhance its quality and the reliability of the final findings, I would like to offer a few suggestions.

    I find that the authors have stated that they dropped the chance for a quantitative meta-analysis as they found substantial heterogeneity. I agree with them on decreased reliability of a pooled estimate with high heterogeneity. However, I believe that a quantitative estimate, even accompanied by considerable heterogeneity, is still much more convenient for readers to infer and relate. In fact, having a high heterogeneity is a good chance for authors to investigate the factors and covariates, providing a more precise insight into the complex relationships, and substantially improving the quality of the study. Therefore, I suggest an appendix that provides such data. Providing the limitation...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.