Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36582416›Full record

ArticleMDM policy & practice

Factors Influencing Physician Prognosis: A Scoping Review.

Amaryllis Ferrand, Jelena Poleksic, Eric Racine

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in MDM policy & practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Patient expectations about the oncologic benefit of pancreatectomy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

3 authors.

Amaryllis FerrandPragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3078-354X
Jelena PoleksicPragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Eric RacinePragmatic Health Ethics Research Unit, Montreal Clinical Research Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Highlights: Literature on discrepancies in physician's prognostication is heterogeneous and sparse.Literature shows that physicians are mostly pessimistic regarding patient outcomes.Literature shows that a physician's personality and psychology influence prognostic accuracy and could be improved with evidence-based debiasing strategies.Medical specialty strongly influences prognosis, with specialties exposed to acutely ill patients being more pessimistic, whereas specialties following patients longitudinally being more optimistic.Physicians early in their training were more pessimist than more experienced physicians.

Indexed as

AttitudesBiasEthicsPhysicianprognosis

Identifiers

PMID36582416
PMCPMC9793048

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.