ArticleAdvances in psychiatric treatment : the Royal College of Psychiatrists' journal of continuing professional development2013
In Defence of Professional Judgement.
Article in Advances in psychiatric treatment : the Royal College of Psychiatrists' journal of continuing professional development, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Factors That Affect Sexual Safety on Adult Mental Health Inpatient Units: A Scoping Review and Content Analysis.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
- The moderating role of trajectories of family hardiness in the relationship between trajectories of economic hardship and mental health of mothers and children.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Trajectories of perceived economic hardship: Relations with mother's and child's mental health and the role of self-esteem.Current psychology (New Brunswick, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A judgement is an assertion made with evidence or good reason in a context of uncertainty. In psychiatry the uncertainty is inherent in the professional context, and the evidence derives from the academic literature and scientific studies as they are applied to a specific patient. The nature of the uncertainty and the factors which should inform professional judgement are explored. Professional judgement is currently facing two serious challenges: an obsession with numbers, which comes from within medicine, and the 'patient choice' agenda, which is politically inspired and comes from outside medicine. This paper strives to defend professional judgement in the clinic against both challenges.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.