ArticleJournal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma2025
Unlocking effective decision-making and critical thinking in orthopaedics: Insights from a narrative review.
Article in Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- When Intuition Meets the Algorithm: Medico-Legal Implications of Artificial Intelligence-Driven Decision-Making in Orthopedics.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Background: Clinical decision-making and critical thinking are vital in orthopaedic practice, directly impacting patient outcomes. Surgeons often face complex cases requiring both experience and systematic reasoning to ensure the best treatment approach. This review aims to explore the factors influencing decision-making in orthopaedics, focusing on the role of critical thinking in enhancing clinical choices. It examines decision-making frameworks, cognitive biases, and the importance of evidence-based practices. Additionally, the review discusses the increasing role of artificial intelligence (AI) and decision support systems in aiding clinical decisions. Methods: This review analyzes peer-reviewed literature published from 2011 to 2024, covering case studies, surveys, qualitative research, and systematic reviews. Databases like PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science (WoS), and Google Scholar were used to source relevant articles. The focus was on decision-making frameworks, cognitive biases, and AI integration in orthopaedics, particularly studies on AI and data analytics in improving decision support systems. Results: Structured decision-making frameworks and mentorship play a key role in enhancing critical thinking. Cognitive biases, such as confirmation and anchoring bias, are significant challenges. AI and evidence-based guidelines help improve clinical decisions by offering data-driven insights. Conclusions: Optimizing clinical decision-making requires structured education, critical thinking development, and AI integration to improve patient outcomes and streamline decision-making.
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.