Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42668518›Full record

ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026

Structured prompting as reusable clinical tools.

Dina Husum, Thomas Hügle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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.

Dina HusumDanish Centre for Expertise in Rheumatology (CeViG), Danish Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Sønderborg, Denmark.
Thomas HügleDepartment of Rheumatology, University Hospital Lausanne (CHUV), University of Lausanne, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used by clinicians, yet most clinical interactions remain disposable: a question asked, an answer received, and the reasoning discarded. Just as the stethoscope required physicians to learn a skill before it became clinically useful, LLMs demand a learned technique, prompting, to unlock their potential. We present a practical framework for progressing from passive artificial intelligence (AI) use to reusable, structured clinical reasoning prompts. Methods: We propose a 5-level hierarchy of clinician-to-AI interaction, progressing from search (level 1), through conversational prompting (level 2), persistent prompting (level 3), and document-grounded project workspaces (level 4), to structured clinical reasoning prompts, termed skills, versioned, auditable, and iteratively improvable (level 5). The framework is illustrated with a proof-of-concept skill: a multidisciplinary diagnostic deliberation prompt for complex clinical cases, deployed as an open-access web application. Results: Each level is intended to add structure, reproducibility, and clinical value, though this has not been formally evaluated. Skills prompt clinical reasoning into reusable protocols with defined inputs, logic gates, verification safeguards, and tiered outputs. The case example demonstrates that clinicians can author such prompts in natural language without software engineering expertise, applying principles of version control and failure-driven iteration familiar from clinical research. Conclusions: Prompting is an acquired clinical skill, not an innate ability. A shared framework and vocabulary for structured AI interaction can help clinicians, educators, and policymakers move from disposable AI use towards more structured, auditable approaches to AI-assisted reasoning that support, but do not replace, clinical judgement.

Identifiers

PMID42668518
PMCPMC13524600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.