Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38464754›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Collaborative clinical reasoning: a scoping review.

Ching-Yi Lee, Hung-Yi Lai, Ching-Hsin Lee, Mi-Mi Chen, Sze-Yuen Yau

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Integrating Systems and Critical Thinking, Clinical Reasoning, Decision-Making, and Judgement in Dietetic Education: Development of a Conceptual Pilot Model.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors.

Ching-Yi Lee *Department of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Hung-Yi Lai *Department of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Ching-Hsin LeeDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Proton and Radiation Therapy Center, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Mi-Mi ChenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital at Linkou and Chang Gung University College of Medicine, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Sze-Yuen Yau(CG-MERC) Chang Gung Medical Education Research Centre, Linkou, Taoyuan, Taiwan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Collaborative clinical reasoning (CCR) among healthcare professionals is crucial for maximizing clinical outcomes and patient safety. This scoping review explores CCR to address the gap in understanding its definition, structure, and implications. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to examine CCR related studies in healthcare. Medline, PsychInfo, SciVerse Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Inclusion criteria included full-text articles published between 2011 to 2020. Search terms included cooperative, collaborative, shared, team, collective, reasoning, problem solving, decision making, combined with clinical or medicine or medical, but excluded shared decision making. Results: A total of 24 articles were identified in the review. The review reveals a growing interest in CCR, with 14 articles emphasizing the decision-making process, five using Multidisciplinary Team-Metric for the Observation of Decision Making (MDTs-MODe), three exploring CCR theory, and two focusing on the problem-solving process. Communication, trust, and team dynamics emerge as key influencers in healthcare decision-making. Notably, only two articles provide specific CCR definitions. Conclusions: While decision-making processes dominate CCR studies, a notable gap exists in defining and structuring CCR. Explicit theoretical frameworks, such as those proposed by Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al., are crucial for advancing research and understanding CCR dynamics within collaborative teams. This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of CCR research, revealing a growing interest and diversity in the field. The review emphasizes the need for explicit theoretical frameworks, citing Blondon et al. and Kiesewetter et al. The broader landscape of interprofessional collaboration and clinical reasoning requires exploration.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareProblem SolvingClinical ReasoningDecision Making, SharedHealth PersonnelHumansCollaborative clinical reasoningHealth professionsScopingShared mental

Identifiers

PMID38464754
PMCPMC10924455

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.