ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2025
A Reflective Verbalization Strategy to Trigger Alternative Diagnostic Hypotheses.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationalePhysicians sometimes encounter various types of gut feelings (GFs) during clinical diagnosis. The type of GF addressed in this paper refers to the intuitive sense that the generated hypothesis might be incorrect. An appropriate diagnosis cannot be obtained unless these GFs are articulated and inventive solutions are devised. Thus, the method of articulating GFs is critical. AIMS AND
objectivesThe current study proposes reflective verbalization (RV) to help healthcare professionals capitalize on their GF. In cognitive psychology, RV is the process of verbalizing one's thoughts and feelings through metacognition, to promote deeper understanding and insight problem-solving. When applied to clinical reasoning, RV can help doctors verbalize their GFs, refining their diagnostic hypotheses.
methodTo address GFs systematically using RV, we introduce the DATES approach, comprising five perspectives: Degree, Abandoned, Time course, Excess, and Shortage. Each perspective prompts physicians to compare their patient's information against typical illness scripts, ensuring no detail is omitted or overlooked. RESULTS AND
conclusionThe tool also aids physicians in considering possible differential diagnoses for one or more of these elements. This guiding tool may aid physicians in overcoming biases, including confirmation and anchoring biases, thus improving diagnostic accuracy. This tool is useful for healthcare professionals who wish to improve their clinical reasoning and decision-making abilities, particularly when they encounter inexplicable contradictions in their diagnostic hypotheses.
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.