ArticleThe western journal of emergency medicine2025
Cognitive Frame and Time Pressure as Moderators Of Clinical Reasoning: A Case Control Study.
Article in The western journal of emergency medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEmergency physicians (EP) are uniquely positioned to benefit from a deeper understanding of cognitive bias, particularly in the context of limited processing time. The framing effect-the tendency to evaluate identical information inconsistently given varying methods of presentation- presents a particular challenge within emergency medicine (EM). Understanding how the presentation of clinical information affects medical decision-making is paramount, given variability in how information is received. In this study we aimed to assess whether the imposition of a cognitive frame and time pressure affected participants' differential diagnoses.
methodsWe recruited attending physicians in emergency medicine (EM) and third-year EM residents via email from our university hospital. They were asked to review two case vignettes: one consistent with pulmonary embolism (PE), the other with interstitial lung disease. Each vignette had two versions, one emphasizing features consistent with the respective diagnoses. Each pair of vignettes contained objectively identical clinical information. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four conditions based on 1) the specific or non-specific-frame version of each case and 2) the inclusion or exclusion of time pressure. Subjects provided their top three differential diagnoses for each case. Our primary outcome measure was identification of intended diagnosis.
resultsA total of 39 subjects completed the study. Two-sided Fisher exact tests showed that varying cognitive frames affected the likelihood of EPs identifying PE as a diagnosis of interest (P = .01). Among EPs who identified PE, the likelihood of this diagnosis leading their differential diagnosis was also related to frame (P = .01).
conclusionThe results of this work reveal that cognitive frame and time pressure may independently influence diagnostic reasoning among emergency physicians, bearing implications for medical education.
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.