With a new study out of Texas having found that at least one in 20 U recently.

This is because of the known fact that most misdiagnoses take place at outpatient clinics, which are not typically the focus of individual safety studies. ‘Because of the large numbers of outpatient visits, that is a huge vulnerability,’ mentioned Dr. Hardeep Singh, lead author of the study and patient protection researcher at BCM, during an interview with Reuters. ‘This is a wide array and we need to do something positive about it.’ Faulty medical information could mean even more sufferers are being misdiagnosed Predicated on earlier analysis carried out by Dr. Singh, medical misdiagnoses are problematic because they put affected person safety at an increased risk highly. Missing a serious condition like cancer, for instance, can result in an individual not getting necessary treatment, while diagnosing an individual for a nonexistent condition can result in unnecessary and possibly life-threatening treatment.

Although Hindawi doesn’t let authors suggest reviewers for their manuscripts, it decided to examine the peer-review information for manuscripts submitted in 2013 and 2014 for possible fraud. The peer-review procedure used in Hindawi’s journals depends generally on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are in charge of supervising the overview of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers selected by the guest editors weren’t subject to any kind of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the process in quite similar way that authors or third-party agencies have done elsewhere: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses from which they submitted positive reviews endorsing publication.Although Hindawi doesn’t let authors suggest reviewers for their manuscripts, it decided to examine the peer-review information for manuscripts submitted in 2013 and 2014 for possible fraud. The peer-review procedure used in Hindawi’s journals depends generally on the expertise of its editorial board members and the guest editors of special issues, who are in charge of supervising the overview of submitted manuscripts.5 Since the peer reviewers selected by the guest editors weren’t subject to any kind of independent verification, editors themselves could undermine the process in quite similar way that authors or third-party agencies have done elsewhere: by creating fake reviewer identities and addresses from which they submitted positive reviews endorsing publication.