ArticleNeurology. Clinical practice2015
Autonomy and the "demanding encounter" in clinical neurology.
Article in Neurology. Clinical practice, 2015. 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.
- Patient Agency in Imaging: Radiologists' Insights.Public health challenges · 2025Article
- Patients' requests for radiological imaging: A qualitative study on general practitioners' perspectives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- The Financial Burden of Functional Neurological Disorders.Current neurology and neuroscience reports · 2023Review
- Autonomy and the "demanding encounter" in clinical neurology.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2015Article
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
We describe a case of psychogenic nonepileptic seizures as an example of what has been called the demanding encounter in clinical neurology. Patients in these encounters are more likely to see themselves as informed consumers who expect to receive requested diagnostic tests and treatments from health care providers, potentially creating a conflict over treatment goals and appropriate limit setting. Demanding encounters are associated with physician burnout and patient dissatisfaction. We survey some of the ethical frameworks introduced to navigate this type of encounter. We argue that physicians are obligated to identify the underlying beliefs that are leading to requests for unnecessary testing and treatment and that, by addressing these beliefs, providers have the best chance of establishing a respectful, meaningful therapeutic relationship with their patients.
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.