Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42256829›Full record

ArticleCureus2026

Physical Examination in Modern Surgical Practice.

Mohammad Safadi, Amir Farah

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 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

2 authors.

Mohammad SafadiGeneral Surgery, EMMS Nazareth Hospital, Nazareth, ISR.
Amir FarahSurgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in diagnostic imaging, laboratory testing, and point-of-care ultrasound have transformed surgical practice, allowing clinicians to identify pathology with unprecedented speed and accuracy. As these technologies have become increasingly integrated into patient care, the bedside physical examination has assumed a less prominent role in clinical decision-making. This shift is often viewed as a natural consequence of technological progress. However, the decline of the bedside physical examination may reflect more than the availability of superior diagnostic tools. It may also represent medicine's growing intolerance of uncertainty. Historically, surgeons routinely made decisions despite incomplete information, relying on history, physical examination, and clinical judgment to guide management. Although modern diagnostics have reduced uncertainty, they have not eliminated it. Imaging studies remain subject to interpretation, clinical presentations remain heterogeneous, and important decisions frequently must be made before definitive answers are available. The physical examination has traditionally served not only as a means of detecting disease but also as a framework for observation, interpretation, and bedside judgment. These skills remain essential even as diagnostic technologies continue to evolve. The relationship between the declining role of the physical examination and the increasing pursuit of diagnostic certainty in contemporary surgical practice should be re-explored. The enduring value of bedside assessment lies not in competing with advanced diagnostics but in cultivating the clinical judgment required to act when certainty remains elusive. As surgery enters an era increasingly shaped by imaging, artificial intelligence, and data-driven decision support, preserving the ability to evaluate patients directly may be as important as adopting the technologies that continue to redefine care.

Indexed as

health professional's educationimaging modalitiespocus (point of care ultrasound)surgeon physical examinationsurgery generaltechnology enhanced education

Identifiers

PMID42256829
PMCPMC13235418

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.