ReviewJSES international2026
Cognitive biases in shoulder surgery decision-making: a narrative review of hidden influences and mitigation strategies.
Review in JSES international, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite advances in evidence-based guidelines, three-dimensional pre-operative planning, and digital decision support, decision-making in shoulder surgery remains influenced by cognitive biases. These systematic errors in judgment, which arise from reliance on mental shortcuts, can alter how surgeons interpret information, select treatments, and evaluate outcomes. This review examines 7 biases commonly encountered in clinical practice-anchoring, availability, confirmation, sunk cost fallacy, outcome bias, commission bias, and overconfidence-and describes their potential to influence management decisions. Drawing from behavioral science and clinical experience, we illustrate the mechanisms by which these biases operate, how they may interact, and the implications for patient care, surgical training, and institutional practice. We propose strategies to recognize and reduce their impact, with the goal of promoting more unbiased, evidence-based, patient-centered decision-making.
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.