SynthesisDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025
Developing a framework for understanding diagnostic reconciliation based on evidence review, stakeholder engagement, and practice evaluation.
Synthesis in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDiagnostic reconciliation is the collaborative process between patients and clinicians to create and reconcile evidence-based, feasible, and desirable care plans. However, the specific components of this process remain unclear. The objective of this study was to develop the first comprehensive framework to elucidate the diagnostic reconciliation process.
methodsWe followed a multi-step and iterative approach to develop the framework, including a focused systematic review of diagnostic conversations, quantitative evaluation of recordings of real-life clinical visits recordings, and stakeholder engagement (e.g., patients, clinicians, researchers).
resultsWe identified 17 potential components to the process of diagnostic reconciliation through literature review and stakeholder engagement. After review of 56 clinical visits and further stakeholder engagement, we developed a final framework including four categories: 1) understanding the need for a test/referral, 2) logistics of test/referral scheduling, 3) test/referral information, and 4) test/referral results.
conclusionsThe proposed framework lays the foundation for evaluation and improvement of diagnostic conversations in practice. Clinicians can enhance patient-centered diagnosis by co-creating diagnostic plans of care in practice and using the components described in the novel diagnostic reconciliation framework.
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.