ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
Diagnostic Reasoning in Surgical Pathology.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleDiagnostic reasoning in surgical pathology is critical for accurate disease identification, particularly for rare conditions. Despite advancements in methodologies, the diagnostic lag remains significant, highlighting the need for improved reasoning skills. AIMS AND
objectivesThis study examines the role of abductive reasoning in diagnostic processes within surgical pathology. A theoretical framework that integrates abduction with deduction and induction to increase diagnostic accuracy and expedite therapeutic interventions is proposed.
methodsThis paper employs a qualitative analysis of the diagnostic reasoning process, emphasizing the interconnectedness of abduction, deduction and induction. It draws on historical philosophical perspectives, particularly those of Charles S. Peirce, to explore how these reasoning types contribute to effective clinical decision-making.
resultsThe findings underscore the importance of abductive reasoning in generating testable hypotheses, even when initial conclusions may be incorrect. The study reveals that while induction and deduction provide structure, abduction fosters creativity and broadens the scope of possible diagnoses, particularly in cases of uncertainty.
conclusionThe integration of abductive reasoning into surgical pathology practices is essential for improving diagnostic outcomes. By emphasizing the generative potential of abduction, this framework aims to reduce diagnostic delays and enhance clinical decision-making, ultimately benefiting patient care. The study advocates the incorporation of this reasoning approach into medical profession to better equip healthcare professionals in navigating complex diagnostic scenarios.
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.