Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329988›Full record

ReviewAdvances in medical education and practice2025

Attachment as a Primary Mechanism in Physician Cognition and Bias During Complex Medical Cases: A Narrative Review.

Carrie Rein

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advances in medical education and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Carrie ReinDepartment of Clinical Research and Leadership, the George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-8275-1978

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: In recent decades, improvements in diagnostic accuracy in medical cases have been minimal despite rapid advancements in technology. Moreover, in complex cases, diagnostic accuracy remains a significant challenge, often reflecting practices from the 18th and 19th centuries. This comprehensive narrative review explores how cognitive bias may act as a critical, yet neglected, factor contributing to the persistent diagnostic error rate. Methods: A narrative review of the literature was conducted through a search of the George Washington University library databases and Google Scholar to identify studies related to physician cognition, complex medical diagnosis, and cognitive error. Results: This review synthesizes existing literature to propose a theoretical framework explaining how cognitive error, clinician cognition, tolerance of uncertainty, and attachment theory interact to influence the formation of cognitive bias at the cost of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency. Discussion: It is not only necessary for clinicians to focus on a patient's words, symptoms, or data to improve diagnostic accuracy, but also for clinicians to relate to others' distress through their own attachment styles: technology's critical blind spot. Clinicians with insecure attachment styles may struggle with metacognition, exhibit lower cognitive flexibility, have reduced tolerance for uncertainty, experience lower thresholds for cognitive load, and rely more heavily on heuristics, leading to an increased likelihood of cognitive error during complex medical cases. This theory provides a foundation for further research into how attachment influences clinician decision-making and diagnostic performance while also highlighting how medical education may reinforce these patterns.

Indexed as

attachment theorycognitive theorydiagnosticsunconscious bias

Identifiers

PMID40329988
PMCPMC12053435

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.