Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42049678›Full record

ArticleThe clinical teacher2026

How to … Coach Problem Representation to Strengthen Diagnostic Reasoning in Trainees.

Cody Clary, Adam Cohen, Satid Thammasitboon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The clinical teacher, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Cody ClaryDivision of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine-Texas Children's Hospital North Austin, Austin, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3140-4991
Adam CohenDivision of Pediatric Hospital Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine-Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4453-3792
Satid ThammasitboonDivision of Pediatric Intensive Care, Baylor College of Medicine-Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, Texas, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Problem representation (PR) is a concise synthesis of clinical information that captures the core diagnostic problem in a single statement, often referred to as a 'one-liner'. Although central to diagnostic reasoning, this skill is frequently underdeveloped in medical training. Many trainees struggle to transform clinical data into meaningful representations, which can hinder communication, diagnostic reasoning and patient safety. The Assessment of Reasoning Tool-Reconstructed (ART-R) provides a structured framework that educators can adapt as a coaching rubric to strengthen PR during clinical teaching. Using the ART-R, faculty can guide trainees to refine their PR by focusing on three elements: (1) clarity of the synthesized clinical problem; (2) emphasis on diagnostically relevant positive and negative findings; (3) use of precise medical terminology. This micro-coaching approach can be naturally embedded into clinical rounds through brief prompts that encourage trainees to refine their one-liner summaries. Through repeated practice, trainees develop increasingly abstracted representations that activate illness scripts and support diagnostic hypothesis generation. Coaching PR in this way provides a practical, low-burden strategy for strengthening diagnostic reasoning during routine clinical teaching. Integrating this approach into patient presentations can help educators cultivate stronger diagnostic reasoning.

Indexed as

Clinical ReasoningEducation, MedicalMentoringClinical CompetenceCommunicationHumansTeaching

Identifiers

PMID42049678
PMCPMC13124678

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.