Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40462148›Full record

ArticleScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2025

Cognitive biases in clinical decision-making in prehospital critical care; a scoping review.

Adam Awanzo, Julian Thompson

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

2 authors.

Adam AwanzoHelgelandssykehuset Prehospital Clinic, Mo i Rana, Norway. adam.awanzo@helgelandssykehuset.no.
Julian ThompsonUniversity of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeEvery day, critical care providers in the prehospital setting respond to time sensitive and outcome-critical emergencies, often in unfamiliar environments with little or no prior knowledge about the patient. In these demanding situations, they must make multifactorial clinical decisions that may be critical for the patient's life and future health. Errors in this complex decision-making have identified as a significant cause of patient harm and, consequently, there is increasing research focus upon clinical decision-making and risk mitigation in prehospital critical care. Cognitive biases have been identified as a common cause of these systematic errors in the hospital environment and these studies inspired the aim of this article to map current evidence and investigate, "What cognitive biases affects clinical decision-making in prehospital critical care". MATERIALS AND

methodsA scoping review was conducted following Joanna Briggs Institute`s framework, by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane for articles, no restrictions were set for type of article. Articles describing cognitive biases and clinical decision-making in pre-, and in-hospital critical care were included. Additionally, a search in Google scholar was conducted using keywords identified in included articles.

resultsFive hundred unique articles were identified through the search, of which 16 articles examining cognitive biases and clinical decision making in critical care were included, with only two articles focussed exclusively on prehospital critical care. Twenty-eight unique cognitive biases were identified in these articles. The most identified cognitive biases were, anchoring bias, framing effect, availability bias, confirmation bias, overconfidence bias, premature closure, and omission bias. Twelve articles described contributing factors for cognitive biases and these were categorized into 3 main categories. The main categories identified were lack of unbiased feedback, social behaviour and beliefs, and time pressure. Eleven articles proposed mitigation factors, which were categorized into 3 categories, consisting of feedback and follow-up, organizational culture, and education and training.

conclusionsThis scoping review has identified several cognitive biases that affect clinical decision-making, as well as research gaps in both pre- and in-hospital critical care. Identified evidence suggest that both clinicians and organisations are affected by cognitive biases in clinical decision-making in critical care. Future research should aim to establish how these cognitive biases affect clinical decisions in prehospital critical care, and what measures may mitigate the consequent errors, may reduce patient harm, and improve outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingCognitionCritical CareEmergency Medical ServicesBiasHumansClinical decision-makingCognitive biasesCritical carePrehospitalScoping review

Identifiers

PMID40462148
PMCPMC12135565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.