ArticleJournal of epidemiology and global health2018
Clinical Decision-making among Emergency Physicians: Experiential or Rational?
Article in Journal of epidemiology and global health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- BLEED TIME Simulation Study - Bleeding Limb, Effectiveness and Efficiency in Determining Time to Intervene on Mangled Extremity.Advances in medical education and practice · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligent Agent Architecture and Clinical Decision-Making in the Healthcare Sector.Cureus · 2024Article
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
It has been postulated that everyone has an affinity for one of two cognitive approaches: experiential (intuitive) or rational (conscious). The aim of this study was to analyze the thinking processes of Saudi emergency physicians at nine hospitals in Riyadh. This was a cross-sectional study, which was undertaken in Riyadh using a psychometric tool called the Rational-Experiential Inventory-40. The survey, sent by e-mail to 202 emergency physicians, had a 53% response rate. Most respondents were male (86%). The total surveyed participants included consultants (36%), associate consultants (19%), registrars, fellow or staff physicians (7%), and residents (38%). The results found a mean (standard deviation) score of 3.73 (0.51) for rational approaches to decision-making and 3.09 (0.45) for experiential approaches among the emergency physicians surveyed. The difference of 0.46 between the two scores was not statistically significant (
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.