ReviewAnnals of family medicine2018
Solving the Diagnostic Challenge: A Patient-Centered Approach.
Review in Annals of family medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Improving the Quality of Life of Gynecological Patients with Surgery: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on Questionnaire Surveys.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Authors' Response to "Anticipating Uncertainty: A New Frontier in Family Medicine Training".Family medicine · 2025Article
- Storylines of family medicine XII: family medicine and the healthcare system.Family medicine and community health · 2024Article
- Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: How Machine Learning Can Help Distinguish between Infections and Flares.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Observational
- Determinants of referral for suspected coronary artery disease: a qualitative study based on decision thresholds.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- The Role of Primary Care in Improving Population Health.The Milbank quarterly · 2023Article
- Opinion seeking behaviour of healthcare providers in ambulatory cardiovascular care in Germany: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Embracing complexity with systems thinking in general practitioners' clinical reasoning helps handling uncertainty.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2021Article
- Opening the black box of machine learning in radiology: can the proximity of annotated cases be a way?European radiology experimental · 2020Article
- The human encounter, attention, and equality: the value of doctor-patient contact.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
- Medically unexplained symptoms: time to and triggers for diagnosis in primary care consultations.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Arriving at an agreed-on and valid explanation for a clinical problem is important to patients as well as to clinicians. Current theories of how clinicians arrive at diagnoses, such as the threshold approach and the hypothetico-deductive model, do not accurately describe the diagnostic process in general practice. The problem space in general practice is so large and the prior probability of each disease being present is so small that it is not realistic to limit the diagnostic process to testing specific diagnoses on the clinician's list of possibilities. Here, new evidence is discussed about how patients and clinicians collaborate in specific ways, in particular, via a process that can be termed inductive foraging, which may lead to information that triggers a diagnostic routine. Navigating the diagnostic challenge and using patient-centered consulting are not separate tasks but rather synergistic.
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.