SynthesisMedEdPublish (2016)2020
How Do Contexts Affect Physicians' Clinical Reasoning? A Narrative Review.
Synthesis in MedEdPublish (2016), 2020. 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.
- Development and application of the vaccine reporting quality score to evaluate the vaccine adverse event reporting system.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of ethics case based on blended learning approaches on medical students' learning: A quasi-experimental study.Journal of education and health promotion · 2021Article
- The development of clinical thinking in trainee physicians: the educator perspective.BMC medical education · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background Research about clinical reasoning has tended to focus on the individual, assessing their ability to perform clinical reasoning tasks. However, recent studies have noted that clinical reasoning varies with the clinical context. Objectives The purpose of this narrative review is to examine how the context can affect physicians clinical reasoning skills. Methods A narrative literature review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and Embase via Ovid using the search terms clinical OR critical AND thinking OR judgement OR reasoning. Of 22,296 results found, 25 studies were found to be relevant to our review. Results Most studies focused on diagnostic skills. Contexts affecting clinical reasoning fell into three broad categories: patient, physician and environmental (the physical and social setting) factors. Patient contexts researched included factors both personal to the patient and their physical disease manifestations. Physician contexts included experience, age, exposure to similar diagnoses, incorrect diagnostic suggestion, emotions, and the use of reflection and checklists. Environmental contexts included time pressure, unfamiliarity with surroundings, dealing with uncertainty and high-stakes outcomes. The effect of applying more than one contextual factor increasing cognitive load, was explored. Conclusion This original review suggests that the context can affect a physician's clinical reasoning abilities. This review identifies areas for continued research, including which contexts have a negative or positive impact, and the effect of multiple contexts (cognitive loading) on clinical reasoning. Further empirical research is needed to investigate these areas in more depth and to establish how far these benefits have an impact in practice.
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.