ArticleFamily medicine and community health2025
Clinical decision fatigue: a systematic and scoping review with meta-synthesis.
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.
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.
Decision Fatigue Among Anesthesiologists: The Relationship Between Cognitive Load and Emotional Exhaustion
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- An integrative review on unveiling the causes and effects of decision fatigue to develop a multi-domain conceptual framework.Frontiers in cognition · 2025Pooled it
- Hypnosis reshapes multilevel stress response and enhances executive performance in stressed medical students.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- From Critical Thinking to Passive Acceptance: The Moderating Role of Decision Fatigue in Students' Use of Generative AI.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2026Article
- AI-Based Diagnostic Platform Capabilities With Lyme Disease as a Use Case: Integrative Exploration.Online journal of public health informatics · 2026Article
- Decision fatigue and emotional exhaustion among anesthesiologists: Association with clinical workload.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Article
- Organizational Tensions in the Implementation of Modifiable Off-the-Shelf Technologies in a University Hospital: Qualitative Multimethod Study.JMIR human factors · 2026Article
- A Two-Level, Multidimensional Framework for Understanding and Treating Clinician Fatigue.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Defining operational safety in clinical artificial intelligence systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Clinical decision fatigue as a reversible state in the continuum of professional exhaustion.Frontiers in health services · 2026Article
- Interventions to reduce occupational burnout in general practitioners: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Experiences of medication burden among patients with multimorbidity in rural China: a qualitative study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Decision Fatigue in Dermatopathology: Cognitive Load and Diagnostic Vulnerability.Journal of cutaneous pathology · 2025Article
- Predicting offer burden to optimize batch sizes in simultaneously expiring kidney offers.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Efficacy of a multi-nutrient dietary supplement on improving decision fatigue in video gamers.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.