ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Reframing Patient and Parental Experience in Pediatric Healthcare: Medical Gaslighting as a Diagnostic Safety Vulnerability.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 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
Medical gaslighting has emerged as a widely used term describing situations in which patients or caregivers perceive that their symptoms are minimized, dismissed, or prematurely attributed to psychological causes without adequate clinical evaluation. Although the term has gained prominence through patient narratives and public discourse, many of the underlying mechanisms correspond to well-established contributors to diagnostic error, including cognitive bias, communication failures, and diagnostic overshadowing. In pediatric care, these challenges are amplified because clinicians frequently rely upon caregiver-mediated histories while children may have a limited ability to communicate evolving symptoms. This narrative review examines medical gaslighting through the framework of diagnostic safety and explores how epistemic injustice, cognitive bias, and failures in information gathering and interpretation may contribute to delayed, missed, or incorrect diagnoses. Relevant literature was identified through a structured narrative review of publications addressing diagnostic error, cognitive bias, epistemic injustice, diagnostic safety, and pediatric communication. The literature was synthesized conceptually to develop an integrated framework linking patient experiences with established diagnostic safety models. We propose that reframing medical gaslighting as a diagnostic safety vulnerability rather than an allegation of clinician misconduct provides opportunities for measurable quality improvement through enhanced communication, structured reassessment, cognitive debiasing strategies, and integration of patient- and caregiver-reported information into diagnostic reasoning.
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.