Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39587582›Full record

ReviewBMC medical education2024

Enhancing therapeutic reasoning: key insights and recommendations for education in prescribing.

Mariëlle G Hartjes, Milan C Richir, Yoann Cazaubon, Erik M Donker, Ellen van Leeuwen, Robert Likic, Yves-Marie Pers, Joost D Piët, Fabrizio De Ponti, Walter Raasch and 9 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. 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

19 authors.

Mariëlle G HartjesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.hartjes@amsterdamumc.nl.
Milan C RichirDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Yoann CazaubonDepartment of Pharmacology, Montpellier University Hospital, Avenue du Doyen Gaston Giraud, 34090, Montpellier, France.
Erik M DonkerDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Ellen van LeeuwenDepartment of Fundamental and Applied Medical Sciences, Unit of Clinical Pharmacology, Ghent University, C. Heymanslaan 10, 9000, Ghent, Belgium.
Robert LikicUnit of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Centre Zagreb and University of Zagreb School of Medicine, 12 Kišpatićeva St, 10 000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Yves-Marie PersIRMB, University Montpellier, INSERM, CHU Montpellier, Montpellier, France.
Joost D PiëtDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fabrizio De PontiDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, Pharmacology Unit, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Via Zamboni 33, 40126, Bologna, Italy.
Walter RaaschInstitute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Floor van RosseDepartment of Hospital Pharmacy, University Medical Center Rotterdam, MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jitka RychlíckováDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic.
Emilio J SanzSchool of Health Science, Universidad de La Laguna, and Hospital Universitario de Canarias (SCS), Santa Cruz de Tenerife, Calle Padre Herrera, S/N, 38200, La Laguna Tenerife, Spain.
Markus SchwaningerInstitute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany.
Susanna M WallerstedtDepartment of Pharmacology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Theo P G M de VriesDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Michiel A van AgtmaelDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Jelle TichelaarDepartment of Internal Medicine, Unit Pharmacotherapy, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1117, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
EACPT Education Working group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite efforts to improve undergraduate clinical pharmacology & therapeutics (CPT) education, prescribing errors are still made regularly. To improve CPT education and daily prescribing, it is crucial to understand how therapeutic reasoning works. Therefore, the aim of this study was to gain insight into the therapeutic reasoning process.

methodsA narrative literature review has been performed for literature on cognitive psychology and diagnostic and therapeutic reasoning.

resultsBased on these insights, The European Model of Therapeutic Reasoning has been developed, building upon earlier models and insights from cognitive psychology. In this model, it can be assumed that when a diagnosis is made, a primary, automatic response as to what to prescribe arises based on pattern recognition via therapy scripts (type 1 thinking). At some point, this response may be evaluated by the reflective mind (using metacognition). If it is found to be incorrect or incomplete, an alternative response must be formulated through a slower, more analytical and deliberative process, known as type 2 thinking. Metacognition monitors the reasoning process and helps a person to form new therapy scripts after they have chosen an effective therapy. Experienced physicians have more and richer therapy scripts, mostly based on experience and enabling conditions, instead of textbook knowledge, and therefore their type 1 response is more often correct.

conclusionBecause of the important role of metacognition in therapeutic reasoning, more attention should be paid to metacognition in CPT education. Both trainees and teachers should be aware of the possibility to monitor and influence these cognitive processes. Further research is required to investigate the applicability of these insights and the adaptability of educational approaches to therapeutic reasoning.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningClinical CompetenceDrug PrescriptionsEducation, Medical, UndergraduateHumansMedication ErrorsMetacognitionPharmacology, ClinicalClinical competencyClinical pharmacology and therapeuticsManagement reasoningMedical decision makingMedical educationTherapeutic reasoning

Identifiers

PMID39587582
PMCPMC11590475

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.