Systematic bias in recording the history in @entity1 with XXXX .

@entity1 @entity951 @entity662
Because of its central importance in medical diagnosis, sources of bias in the @entity1 history must be identified. We report here a study of interobserver agreement in @entity662 histories. Histories were obtained by physicians, nurse practitioners, and self-administered questionnaires. We used a discriminant rule to classify the histories as being more or less typical of @entity951 . A sub-group of the subjects underwent coronary arteriography after the histories were obtained. In subjects with positive coronary arteriograms, physicians consistently obtained histories typical of @entity951 more often than a self-administered questionnaire. There was no significant systematic bias when comparing physician interviews to the questionnaire among subjects with negative arteriograms nor when comparing two physicians' interviews or a nurse practitioner interview to a questionnaire. When compared to physician interviews, nurse practitioner interviews produced histories less typical of @entity951 . We conclude that there are systematic differences between the histories obtained by physicians, nurse practitioners, and self-administered questionnaires. Questionnaires can produce biased @entity1 histories and should be carefully validated before being used in @entity1 care activities or health care research.
