ArticlePloS one2025
Creativity research in medicine and nursing: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A scoping review on the use of virtual patients for enhancing empathy in medical students.Medical education online · 2026Article
- The Predictive Role of Community of Inquiry in Shaping Students' Creative Self-Concept: A Cross-Sectional Study.Nursing open · 2026Article
- Creativity and job satisfaction among nurses in iran: a descriptive-correlational study.BMC nursing · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCreativity fuels societal progress and innovation, particularly in the field of medicine. The scientific study of creativity in medicine is critical to understanding how creativity contributes to medical practice, processes, and outcomes. An appraisal of the current scientific literature on the topic, and its gaps, will expand our understanding of how creativity and medicine interact, and guide future research.
objectivesWe aimed to assess the quantity, trends, distribution, and methodological features of the peer-reviewed on creativity in medicine.
methodsWe searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases for peer-reviewed primary research publications on creativity in medicine. Screening, full-text review, and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate by pairs of reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We performed descriptive analyses, graphically displaying the data using charts and maps where appropriate.
resultsEighty-one studies were eligible for review, enrolling a total of 18,221 physicians, nurses and midwifes across all studies. Most research on creativity in medicine was published in the last decade, predominately in the field of nursing (75%). Researchers from Taiwan (22%) and the United States (21%) produced the most eligible publications, and the majority research was cross-sectional in nature (54%). There was substantial variability in the definitions of creativity adopted, and most studies failed to specify a definition of creativity. Forty-five different measurement tools were used to assess creativity, the most popular being divergent thinking tests such as the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (24%) and Guilford Creativity Tests (16%).
conclusionsPeer-reviewed scientific research on creativity in medicine, mostly conducted in the nursing profession, is sparse and performed on variable methodological grounds. Further scientific research on the topic, as well as the development of medicine-specific definitions and measurement tools, is required to uncover the utility of creativity in the medical domain.
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.