Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42828311›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in veterinary science2026

Teaching common cognitive biases and associated errors in veterinary neurologic diagnosis using clinical vignettes: a narrative review.

Rod Bagley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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

1 author.

Rod BagleyDepartment of Veterinary Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical evaluation and management of veterinary patients is a human endeavor and therefore dependent on the capacity and limitations of human cognition in forming clinical opinions of patient health and decisions relative to patient care. Consequently, numerous cognitive biases are pervasive in the clinical evaluation of animal patients. These biases include, but are not limited to, representativeness bias, confirmation bias, availability bias, selection bias, and overconfidence bias. While these mental constructs can support positive patient outcomes through rational thinking, recognition of common clinical patterns, and intuitive experiences, in other instances these cognitive biases can contribute to cognitive error and medical decision-making mistakes. The astute clinician is cognizant of when cognitive bias becomes a cognitive limitation to compensate for, and ideally avoid, the potential negative consequences of these decision-making strategies. Most importantly, these mental phenomena can and should be formally taught to veterinary students as a component of learning the clinical method, so developing clinicians become familiar with these important influences on clinical thinking as they cultivate their clinical acumen. This narrative review explores teaching common clinical judgment biases using contextual clinical case vignettes which illustrate the operational dynamics associated with these biases during clinical assessments. By identifying and actively debriefing on how clinical thinking paradigms influence case situational dynamics, aspiring clinicians will improve their clinical judgment benefiting clinical science, patient care, and ultimately, patient safety.

Indexed as

clinical evaluationcognitive biascognitive errorneurologic diagnosisteaching

Identifiers

PMID42828311
PMCPMC13632602

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.