Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12014539›Full record

ReviewThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002

Intuition and evidence--uneasy bedfellows?

Trisha Greenhalgh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Understanding the role of GPs' gut feelings in diagnosing cancer in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing evidence.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Barriers to GPs' use of evidence-based medicine: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2012
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Intuitive Medicine: A New Vision for Medical Education.Advances in medical education and practice · 2025
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Medicine, emotience, and reason.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Trisha GreenhalghDepartment of Primary Care and Population Sciences, Royal Free and University College Medical School, London.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intuition is a decision-making method that is used unconsciously by experienced practitioners but is inaccessible to the novice. It is rapid, subtle, contextual, and does not follow simple, cause-and-effect logic. Evidence-based medicine offers exciting opportunities_for improving patient outcomes, but the 'evidence-burdened' approach of the inexperienced, protocol-driven clinician is well documented Intuition is not unscientific. It is a highly creative process, fundamental to hypothesis generation in science. The experienced practitioner should generate and follow clinical hunches as well as (not instead of applying the deductive principles of evidence-based medicine. The educational research literature suggests that we can improve our intuitive powers through systematic critical reflection about intuitive judgements--for example, through creative writing and dialogue with professional colleagues. It is time to revive and celebrate clinical storytelling as a method for professional education and development. The stage is surely set for a new, improved--and, indeed, evidence-based--'Balint'group.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineIntuitionHumans

Identifiers

PMID12014539
PMCPMC1314297

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.