Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41472183›Full record

ReviewVeterinary sciences2025

Clinical Reasoning Uncertainty in Veterinary Medical Encounters with a Clinical Example.

Kiro Risto Petrovski, Roy Neville Kirkwood

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Veterinary sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Kiro Risto PetrovskiSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4016-2576
Roy Neville KirkwoodSchool of Animal and Veterinary Sciences, The University of Adelaide, Roseworthy, SA 5371, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3294-8301

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This narrative review examines the complexities of medical uncertainty in veterinary practice, highlighting its significant implications for clinical reasoning and decision-making. Veterinary professionals face inherent uncertainties due to factors such as biological variability, incomplete knowledge, and the pressures of rapidly evolving practices. The distinction between clinical ambiguity and medical uncertainty is crucial, as it informs the coping strategies employed by veterinarians. While uncertainty is often viewed negatively, it can stimulate curiosity and enhance problem-solving capabilities. This review categorizes uncertainty into aleatoric and epistemic types, offering insights into their origins and impacts on veterinary professionals and client interactions. The dynamic nature of uncertainty influences both immediate clinical encounters and long-term professional development, with varying effects based on individual tolerance levels and situational stakes. Despite the growing body of literature on uncertainty, veterinary education often neglects to address this critical aspect, leading to a gap in metacognitive competencies among practitioners. We have included a case example that offers explicit guidelines on the application of the Five Microskills model of clinical teaching. This model is proposed to assist veterinary professionals in effectively managing uncertainty. To enhance the quality of veterinary care, there is an urgent need to integrate uncertainty management into veterinary curricula and ongoing professional development. By fostering an environment that acknowledges and addresses uncertainty, veterinary professionals can improve their clinical reasoning, strengthen client relationships, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes. This review advocates for the adoption of evidence-based practices and collaborative approaches to navigate the complexities of uncertainty, ensuring high standards of care in veterinary medicine.

Indexed as

ambiguityclinical activitiesclinical judgmentclinical practicemetacognitionteachingveterinary learnerswork-based learning

Identifiers

PMID41472183
PMCPMC12737725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.