ArticleJournal of feline medicine and surgery2016
Case-based clinical reasoning in feline medicine: 2: Managing cognitive error.
Article in Journal of feline medicine and surgery, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cognitive bias in veterinary clinical decision-making: Antemortem misdiagnosis of suspected giant kidney worm (Dioctophyme renale) in Australia.Australian veterinary journal · 2026Article
- Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Speaking Up: Veterinary Ethical Responsibilities and Animal Welfare Issues in Everyday Practice.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2018Article
- Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 2.The Veterinary record · 2017Review
- Comparison of veterinary drugs and veterinary homeopathy: part 1.The Veterinary record · 2017Review
- Case-based clinical reasoning in feline medicine: 3: Use of heuristics and illness scripts.Journal of feline medicine and surgery · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis is Article 2 of a three-part series on clinical reasoning that encourages practitioners to explore and understand how they think and make case-based decisions. It is hoped that, in the process, they will learn to trust their intuition but, at the same time, put in place safeguards to diminish the impact of bias and misguided logic on their diagnostic decision-making. SERIES OUTLINE: Article 1, published in the January 2016 issue of JFMS, discussed the relative merits and shortcomings of System 1 thinking (immediate and unconscious) and System 2 thinking (effortful and analytical). This second article examines ways of managing cognitive error, particularly the negative impact of bias, when making a diagnosis. Article 3, to appear in the May 2016 issue, explores the use of heuristics (mental short cuts) and illness scripts in diagnostic reasoning.
Indexed as
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.