Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42882366›Full record

ReviewDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Diagnostic Communication and the Care That Follows: A Critical Narrative Review.

Theodoros Xanthos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Diagnostics (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.

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.

Theodoros XanthosSchool of Health and Care Sciences, University of West Attica, 12243 Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0003-3670-9305

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An accurate diagnosis does not ensure that a patient understands its implications or receives appropriate care. This critical narrative review draws on purposively selected literature studies on diagnostic labels, explanations of test results, nocebo effects and care after diagnostic revision. Terminology experiments show changes in perceived severity and stated preferences, often in hypothetical settings. Clinical effects on symptoms and healthcare use depend on the intervention, comparator and outcome; explanation is frequently combined with treatment changes. Nocebo experiments demonstrate possible symptom mechanisms, not the cause of an individual patient's continuing symptoms. Studies of diagnostic follow-up identify a separate problem: accurate or revised findings may fail to inform subsequent care. The synthesis distinguishes evidence for changing understanding, relieving symptoms and completing appropriate clinical action. A documented misunderstanding or obsolete instruction can warrant correction while symptom assessment continues. Evaluation should measure accurate understanding, informed choices and care received, with symptoms assessed separately. Truthful disclosure and follow-up remain responsibilities even when symptom benefit is uncertain.

Indexed as

diagnostic communicationdiagnostic labellingdiagnostic revisionincidental findingsinformed consentnocebo effectspatient safetyshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID42882366
PMCPMC13663910

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.