ArticleBMJ open2025
Evolution of medical students' tolerance for uncertainty throughout their curriculum: a systematic mixed studies review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionUnderstanding how uncertainty tolerance (UT) evolves in medical students is crucial to identify training needs and implement effective interventions. However, the dynamic nature of UT and the mechanisms behind its changes over time remain poorly understood. This systematic review aims to map the development of UT in medical students across the course of their training by synthesising the available evidence. We will adopt a systematic mixed studies review approach to provide an integrative synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative data, offering a comprehensive overview of UT temporal evolution. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We will conduct searches in Embase, Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ERIC, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO, from inception to July 2026. We will manually search the references of included studies and track citations through Google Scholar to identify additional eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently extract data from each eligible study using a pre-piloted Microsoft Excel data extraction form. A thematic synthesis will be employed to develop analytic themes from the existing literature, generating new concepts and explanatory hypotheses. Study quality will be evaluated using the QuADS score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for this systematic review, as no primary data will be collected. The protocol for this review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews PROSPERO: CRD42024591340.
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.