Comparing the diagnostic considerations between general practitioners with a special interest in cardiovascular disease and those without in patients with symptoms suggestive of heart failure: a vignette study
Cornelia J. C. Vermeer, Amy Groenewegen, Monika Hollander, Janneke Schuring, Ingrid Looijmans–van den Akker, Andrew Oostindjer, Huug van Duijn, Ineke Nederend, Frans H. Rutten

TL;DR
This study found that general practitioners specialized in cardiovascular disease are more likely to consider heart failure tests in patients with respiratory symptoms than non-specialists.
Contribution
The study demonstrates that cardiovascular-specialized GPs are more inclined to order heart failure-specific diagnostic tests in ambiguous clinical scenarios.
Findings
GPSI-CVD were more likely to order ECG in the first vignette (64.0% vs. 32.5%).
In the second vignette, GPSI-CVD were more likely to order both ECG and natriuretic peptide testing.
Most GPs considered multiple diagnoses, but specialists prioritized heart failure testing.
Abstract
General practitioners (GPs) specialized in cardiovascular disease (GPSI-CVD) may suspect heart failure (HF) more easily than GPs not specialized in CVD. We assessed whether GPSI-CVD consider investigations aimed at detecting HF more often than other GPs in two clinical scenarios of an older male person with respiratory and suggestive HF symptoms. In this vignette study, Dutch GPs evaluated two vignettes. The first involved a 72-year-old man with hypertension and a 30 pack-year smoking history who presented himself with symptoms of a common cold, but also shortness of breath, reduced exercise tolerance, and signs of fluid overload. The second vignette was similar but now the 72-year-old man was known with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). GPs could select diagnostic tests from a multiple-choice list with answer options targeted at HF, COPD or exacerbation of COPD, or lower…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsLabor Law and Work Dynamics · Human Rights and Immigration · Legal processes and jurisprudence
