ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026
Duagnosis: Locating Clinical Uncertainty in the Diagnostic Framework.
Article 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesClinical reasoning research has predominantly operated within a single epistemological system. The prevailing response to clinical uncertainty in primary care has been to cultivate tolerance, embrace ambiguity, or learn to navigate it: each treats uncertainty as inherent to the encounter. We propose a complementary move. Much of what is called clinical uncertainty may be attributed less to the patient's condition than to the reach of the diagnostic framework through which the clinician reasons. We introduce the concept of duagnosis (dual + gnosis, 'knowing'): the clinical cognition in which two independent diagnostic systems are simultaneously activated within a single clinician's reasoning.
methodsConceptual analysis proceeding through concept definition, differentiation from neighbouring frameworks, development of the epistemological argument, and institutional comparison across East Asia. The analysis draws on clinical reasoning research, the philosophy of medicine, evidence on the care of persistent physical symptoms, and comparative scholarship on traditional medicine.
resultsThe core contribution is epistemological: what one framework cannot formulate may resolve into a recognisable, actionable pattern in another, so that uncertainty is partly a property of the framework and not only of the patient. Duagnosis can be stated in two versions: a broad sense continuous with family medicine's plural readings of the patient, and a strict sense in which the criteria of evidence themselves change. An East Asian institutional comparison shows that Japan's unified medical licence locates diagnostic duality within individual clinician cognition for every physician, a capacity medical education has not cultivated.
conclusionExpanding the diagnostic repertoire, not merely tolerating uncertainty, can reduce the proportion of presentations for which no clinical formulation exists. Locating uncertainty partly in the reach of the framework, rather than in the patient, is a reframing that applies beyond any one health system, with implications for communication and referral.
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.