Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39922690›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2025

Clinical decision fatigue: a systematic and scoping review with meta-synthesis.

Nicola Grignoli, Greta Manoni, Jvan Gianini, Peter Schulz, Luca Gabutti, Serena Petrocchi

Registry-linked trialAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07089160 (Decision Fatigue Among Anesthesiologists), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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.

NCT07089160 recruitingnot on this map

Decision Fatigue Among Anesthesiologists: The Relationship Between Cognitive Load and Emotional Exhaustion

TypeobservationalSponsorIstinye UniversityRan2025 to 2025Enrolled97ConditionsBurnout, ProfessionalArmsOnline Survey (Decision Fatigue Scale and Emotional Exhaustion Scale)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. A Two-Level, Multidimensional Framework for Understanding and Treating Clinician Fatigue.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Nicola GrignoliCantonal Sociopsychiatric Organisation, Public Health Division, Department of Health and Social Care, Repubblica e Cantone Ticino, Mendrisio, Switzerland nicola.grignoli@ti.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-6028-2159
Greta ManoniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Regional Hospital of Bellinzona and Valleys, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale and Università della Svizzera italiana, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Jvan GianiniDepartment of Internal Medicine, Regional Hospital of Bellinzona and Valleys, Ente Ospedaliero Cantonale and Università della Svizzera italiana, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Peter SchulzFaculty of Communication, Culture and Society, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland.
Luca GabuttiInstitute of Family Medicine, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland.
Serena PetrocchiInstitute of Family Medicine, Faculty of Biomedical Sciences, Università della Svizzera italiana, Lugano, Ticino, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDecision fatigue (DF) can lead to impaired judgement, decreased diagnostic accuracy and increased likelihood of medical errors. Research on DF is scarce, and little is known about its nature in the clinical context. The objective of the present review was to provide a comprehensive framework to understand how the construct of DF in medical settings has been defined and measured. This review aimed to understand DF determinants and consequences and capture motivational factors overlooked in the existing reviews.

designSystematic and scoping review (ScR) with meta-synthesis. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Empirical and non-empirical papers on clinical DF or related constructs directly impacting clinical decision-making were considered, with doctors of all ages, sexes and nationalities as participants. The Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses scoping review checklist has been applied and checked. INFORMATION SOURCES: Six databases were systematically searched by two independent researchers according to a predefined set of keywords.

results43 papers were included, of which 25 were empirical. The quantitative studies outnumber the qualitative ones and primarily involved residents in Europe/UK and North America. Internal medicine and primary care were the most studied disciplines. Only one sequential cross-sectional study measured DF in the medical setting, and all other studies addressed the construct indirectly. A conceptual analysis of clinical DF, including narrative contributions, a thematic analysis of the data extracted and a meta-synthesis, is provided. Clinical DF was investigated mostly by individual risk factors analysed through multiple intertwined determinants involving cognitive, emotional, behavioural, social and ethical aspects. Relevant risks, protective factors and negative outcomes circularly increasing DF are outlined.

conclusionsThe review gives solid arguments for developing a clear and coherent definition of clinical DF that allows the implementation of preventive targeted intervention. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: This systematic review was pre-registered in PROSPERO on 8 November 2023 (available online at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023476190, registration number CRD4202347619).

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingHumansHealth PolicyPhysicians, Primary CarePsychology, MedicalPublic HealthQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID39922690
PMCPMC11808891

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

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.