Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32928158›Full record

ArticleBMC emergency medicine2020

Conceptualizations of clinical decision-making: a scoping review in geriatric emergency medicine.

Maria Louise Gamborg, Mimi Mehlsen, Charlotte Paltved, Gitte Tramm, Peter Musaeus

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

5 authors.

Maria Louise GamborgCentre for Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. gamborg@cesu.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-8720-3307
Mimi MehlsenDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Charlotte PaltvedCorporate HR MidtSim, Central Region of Denmark & Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Gitte TrammDepartment of Psychology, Faculty of Business and Social Sciences, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Peter MusaeusCentre for Health Sciences Education, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical decision-making (CDM) is an important competency for young doctors especially under complex and uncertain conditions in geriatric emergency medicine (GEM). However, research in this field is characterized by vague conceptualizations of CDM. To evolve and evaluate evidence-based knowledge of CDM, it is important to identify different definitions and their operationalizations in studies on GEM.

objectiveA scoping review of empirical articles was conducted to provide an overview of the documented evidence of findings and conceptualizations of CDM in GEM.

methodsA detailed search for empirical studies focusing on CDM in a GEM setting was conducted in PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, EMBASE and Web of Science. In total, 52 publications were included in the analysis, utilizing a data extraction sheet, following the PRISMA guidelines. Reported outcomes were summarized.

resultsFour themes of operationalization of CDM emerged: CDM as dispositional decisions, CDM as cognition, CDM as a model, and CDM as clinical judgement. Study results and conclusions naturally differed according to how CDM was conceptualized. Thus, frailty-heuristics lead to biases in treatment of geriatric patients and the complexity of this patient group was seen as a challenge for young physicians engaging in CDM.

conclusionsThis scoping review summarizes how different studies in GEM use the term CDM. It provides an analysis of findings in GEM and call for more stringent definitions of CDM in future research, so that it might lead to better clinical practice.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingEmergency MedicineGeriatricsHumansBiases and heuristicsClinical judgementCognitionDecision makingGeriatric patientsScoping reviewYoung physicians

Identifiers

PMID32928158
PMCPMC7489001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.