Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39056483›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of nursing knowledge2025

Clinical reasoning and clinical judgment in nursing research: A bibliometric analysis.

Odette Doyon, Louis Raymond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of nursing knowledge, 2025. 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. The cognitive work of acute care nurses: A hybrid model concept analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Odette DoyonDepartment of Nursing Sciences, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-1712-380X
Louis RaymondDepartment of Nursing Sciences, Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Trois-Rivières, Quebec, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1631-8171

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo characterize the thematic foci, structure, and evolution of nursing research on clinical reasoning and judgment.

designBibliometric analysis.

methodsWe used a bibliometric method to analyze 1528 articles. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Scopus bibliographic database on January 7, 2024.

resultsThrough a keyword co-occurrence analysis, we found the most frequent keywords to be clinical judgment, clinical reasoning, nursing education, simulation, nursing, clinical decision-making, nursing students, nursing assessment, critical thinking, nursing diagnosis, patient safety, nurses, nursing process, clinical competence, and risk assessment. The focal themes, structure, and evolution of nursing research on clinical reasoning and judgment were revealed by keyword mapping, clustering, and time-tracking.

conclusionBy assessing key nursing research areas, we extend the current discourse on clinical reasoning and clinical judgment for researchers, educators, and practitioners. Critical challenges must still be met by nursing professionals with regard to their use of clinical reasoning and judgment within their clinical practice. Further knowledge and comprehension of the clinical reasoning process and the development of clinical judgment must be successfully translated from research to nursing education and practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: This study highlights the nursing knowledge gaps with regard to nurses' use of clinical reasoning and judgment and encourages nursing educators and professionals to focus on developing nurses' clinical reasoning and judgment with regard to their patients' safety. IMPACT: In addressing nurses' use of clinical reasoning and judgment, and with regard to patient safety in particular, this study found that, in certain clinical settings, the use of clinical reasoning and judgment remains a challenge for nursing professionals. This study should thus have an effect on nursing academics' research choices, on nursing educators' teaching practices, and on nurses' clinical practices. REPORTING

methodRelevant EQUATOR guidelines have been adhered to by employing recognized bibliometric reporting methods.

Indexed as

BibliometricsClinical ReasoningJudgmentNursing ResearchClinical CompetenceHumansbibliometricsclinical decision‐makingclinical judgementclinical judgmentclinical reasoningpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID39056483
PMCPMC12282499

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.