ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Cognitive Tunneling in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Critical Review of Implications for Clinical Practice and Mitigation Strategies.
Review in Diseases (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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cognitive tunnelling poses significant risks in OB/GYN, where rapid clinical deterioration and time-pressured decision-making are common. This critical review synthesized evidence from a comprehensive literature search across multiple databases, yielding 414 unique papers examining cognitive tunnelling mechanisms, patient safety consequences, and mitigation strategies in obstetric and gynecological contexts. Medicolegal analysis reveals that cognitive tunnelling contributes to malpractice exposure and that adoption of structured safety programs addresses root causes and strengthens the clinical record for forensic review. Mitigation strategies were critically evaluated: metacognition and individual cognitive forcing strategies such as DECLARE (Differential, Examine, Consider, List, Assess, Review, Evaluate) and Pivot-and-Cluster show theoretical promise but depend on intact executive capacity that is depleted under the very conditions that precipitate tunnelling; debriefing demonstrates consistent improvements in team situational awareness and latent threat identification but requires organizational just culture and psychological safety; and hierarchical closed-loop communication systems provide the strongest evidence of reducing preventable adverse events by distributing attentional load across teams, though authority gradients risk suppressing junior-staff dissent. Despite growing recognition, significant knowledge gaps remain regarding measurement methodologies, obstetric-specific research, intervention effectiveness, and the integration of emerging artificial intelligence technologies. Addressing cognitive tunneling through quality studies with patient-centered outcomes and validated measures is essential for reducing medical errors and enhancing patient safety in women's healthcare.
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.