ArticleInternational journal of medical education2026
Metacognitive regulation in physical therapists' clinical reasoning: a scoping review.
Article in International journal of medical education, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this scoping review was to explore: (1) the nature and purposes of metacognitive regulation in clinical reasoning activities in Physical Therapy, and (2) the breadth and diversity of methods and tools used to assess metacognitive regulation in clinical reasoning activities in Physical Therapy. Methods: The nine steps of the JBI guideline and the Prisma-Scr checklist were used. The Pubmed, Google Scholar, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and ERIC databases were queried. Resources published after 2000, in English and French, were searched using a broad range of terms defining metacognitive regulation. Two researchers carried out the parallel and blinded selection and extraction of data concerning the nature of metacognitive regulation (timing, type, task characteristics) and its purposes, as well as assessment methods and tools. Results: Of the 1,025 identified articles, 36 were analyzed. An integrative model was created, synthesizing the relationships between five key characteristics: the type, timing, task, focal, interaction, and purposes of metacognitive regulation. Assessment methods showed diversity, while remaining underdeveloped overall. Conclusions: This research formalizes a conceptual framework specific to Physical Therapists metacognitive regulation during clinical reasoning. It establishes a framework and synthesizes existing tools, opening up possible avenues to clarify and develop metacognitive regulation, or engage in research in the field of 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.