Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183457›Full record

ArticleMedical science educator2026

Subjectivity in Entrustment Decision-Making in the Clinical Workplace: Can We Retain Its Legitimacy But Avoid Bias?

E F Wilma Kleijer, Inge A Pool, Marieke J Schuurmans, Olle Ten Cate

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Medical science educator, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

E F Wilma KleijerUtrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9146-9151
Inge A PoolIsala Academy, Zwolle, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3622-1273
Marieke J SchuurmansUniversity Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6679-2141
Olle Ten CateUtrecht Center for Research and Development of Health Professions Education, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6379-8780

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

After decades of emphasis on objectivity in assessment, the awareness of the significance of expert judgment in the clinical workplace has led scholars to acknowledge the value of subjectivity in such assessment. With the advent of entrustment-focused assessment, validity questions led us to examine subjectivity as a construct and to explore the role of bias within expert judgment. In this commentary, the authors propose a conceptual model of subjectivity that distinguishes implicit and explicit bias, as well as systemic and individual-focused bias, not to provide solutions to abandon bias, but to raise awareness of its conceptual role in entrustment decisions.

Indexed as

BiasClinical workplaceEnstrustment decision-makingLegitimate subjectivity

Identifiers

PMID42183457
PMCPMC13197520

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.