ReviewJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Re-Imagining Clinical Reasoning: An Updated Cognitive Framework for Real-World Medical Practice.
Review in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rational For decades, clinical reasoning has occupied a central place in the discourse of medical education, often generating extensive debate regarding its conceptual foundations and optimal pedagogical approaches. Despite the volume of scholarship, there remains little consensus. To date, conceptualisations of cognitive processes in clinical practice have largely centered around the conventional dual-process model, which dichotomises judgments on clinical problems in terms of intuitive ("fast") or analytical ("slow") processes. However, this conventional clinical reasoning framework has been increasingly critiqued for its limitations in construct validity and its restricted applicability to real-world clinical settings. In this article, we review the core domains of clinical reasoning to formulate a three-tiered expert intuitionist model that is more applicable in real-world medical practice. Specifically, we synthesise theories of skilled intuition, 4E theorem of mind-body-environment interactions, and higher-order metacognition to articulate a more ecologically valid understanding of how clinicians think in practice. We further discuss practical applications of this three-tiered clinical reasoning model in terms of medical educational and training pedagogy.
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.