Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31695548›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2019

Five decades of research and theorization on clinical reasoning: a critical review.

Shahram Yazdani, Maryam Hoseini Abardeh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 61 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Intelligent Reasoning Cues: A Framework and Case Study of the Roles of AI Information in Complex Decisions.Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. CHI Conference · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. The Development and Evaluation of a Clinical Reasoning Case for Second-Year Medical Students.MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Diagnostic Reasoning in Surgical Pathology.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Shahram YazdaniDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medical Education, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Maryam Hoseini AbardehDepartment of Medical Education, School of Medical Education, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical reasoning is a complex cognitive process that is essential to evaluate and manage a patient's medical problem. The aim of this paper was to provide a critical review of the research literature on clinical reasoning theories and models. To conduct our study, we applied the process of conducting a literature review in four stages in accordance with the approach of Carnwell and Daly. First, we defined the scope of the review as being limited to clinical reasoning theories and models in medical education. In the second stage, we conducted a search based on related words in PubMed, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, ERIC, ScienceDirect and Web of Science databases. In the third stage, we classified the results of the review into three categories, and in the fourth stage, we concluded and informed further studies. Based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 31 articles were eligible to be reviewed. Three theories and two models were recognized and classified into three categories. Several theories and models have been proposed in relation to clinical reasoning, but it seems that these theories and models could only explain part of this complex process and not the whole process. Therefore, to fulfill this gap, it may be helpful to build a Meta-model or Meta-theory, which unified all the models, and theories of clinical reasoning.

Indexed as

clinical reasoningmedical educationreview

Identifiers

PMID31695548
PMCPMC6717718
OpenAlexW2970370298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.