ReviewClujul medical (1957)2016
The development of scientific reasoning in medical education: a psychological perspective.
Review in Clujul medical (1957), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Numerate people are less likely to be biased by regular science reporting: the critical roles of scientific reasoning and causal misunderstanding.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2025Article
- The importance of theory and method: A brief reflection on an innovative program of research examining how situational factors influence physicians' clinical reasoning.FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Article
- Assessing Pharmacy Students' Scientific Reasoning After Completing a Physics Course Taught Using Active-Learning Methods.American journal of pharmaceutical education · 2020Article
- Clinical Case Discussions - a novel, supervised peer-teaching format to promote clinical reasoning in medical students.GMS journal for medical education · 2020Article
- Prediction of loss to follow-up in long-term supportive periodontal therapy in patients with chronic periodontitis.PloS one · 2018Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scientific reasoning has been studied from a variety of theoretical perspectives, which have tried to identify the underlying mechanisms responsible for the development of this particular cognitive process. Scientific reasoning has been defined as a problem-solving process that involves critical thinking in relation to content, procedural, and epistemic knowledge. The development of scientific reasoning in medical education was influenced by current paradigmatic trends, it could be traced along educational curriculum and followed cognitive processes. The purpose of the present review is to discuss the role of scientific reasoning in medical education and outline educational methods for its development. Current evidence suggests that medical education should foster a new ways of development of scientific reasoning, which include exploration of the complexity of scientific inquiry, and also take into consideration the heterogeneity of clinical cases found in practice.
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.