ArticleJMIR research protocols2023
Transformation and Articulation of Clinical Data to Understand Students' and Health Professionals' Clinical Reasoning: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial intelligence-assisted multidisciplinary therapy for a complex case of cholangitis with septic shock: a case report and simulated decision-making analysis.AME case reports · 2026Article
- Fostering Physician-Patient Partnerships: The Importance of Embracing the Ontological and Epistemological Understandings of Knowledge.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Review
- Treatment-focused clinical reasoning in medical students: relationship with academic success and professional commitment.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Transformation and articulation of clinical data to understand students' clinical reasoning: a scoping review.BMC medical education · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are still unanswered questions regarding effective educational strategies to promote the transformation and articulation of clinical data while teaching and learning clinical reasoning. Additionally, understanding how this process can be analyzed and assessed is crucial, particularly considering the rapid growth of natural language processing in artificial intelligence.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to map educational strategies to promote the transformation and articulation of clinical data among students and health care professionals and to explore the methods used to assess these individuals' transformation and articulation of clinical data.
methodsThis scoping review follows the Joanna Briggs Institute framework for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist for the analysis. A literature search was performed in November 2022 using 5 databases: CINAHL (EBSCOhost), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and Web of Science (Clarivate). The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework in November 2023. The scoping review will follow the 9-step framework proposed by Peters and colleagues of the Joanna Briggs Institute. A data extraction form has been developed using key themes from the research questions.
resultsAfter removing duplicates, the initial search yielded 6656 results, and study selection is underway. The extracted data will be qualitatively analyzed and presented in a diagrammatic or tabular form alongside a narrative summary. The review will be completed by February 2024.
conclusionsBy synthesizing the evidence on semantic transformation and articulation of clinical data during clinical reasoning education, this review aims to contribute to the refinement of educational strategies and assessment methods used in academic and continuing education programs. The insights gained from this review will help educators develop more effective semantic approaches for teaching or learning clinical reasoning, as opposed to fragmented, purely symptom-based or probabilistic approaches. Besides, the results may suggest some ways to address challenges related to the assessment of clinical reasoning and ensure that the assessment tasks accurately reflect learners' developing competencies and educational progress. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/50797.
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.