ArticleBMJ open2026
What aspects of clinical uncertainty are addressed by published competencies in evidence-based medicine? A scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesUncertainty is inherent within medicine. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) teaching within medical curricula seeks to prepare doctors to make clinical decisions within conditions of uncertainty. The goals and scope of training for medical students and doctors are defined by published EBM competencies. We conducted a scoping review to identify the aspects of clinical uncertainty that are addressed by EBM competencies.
designA scoping review was conducted to identify and synthesise existing literature and models of clinical uncertainty, with help from an advisory group. Reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. DATA SOURCES: Five databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ERIC and Web of Science Core Collection) and supplementary searches. The searches were performed on 7 March, 2023, repeated and updated on 19 February 2025. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included empirical research studies that described uncertainty related to clinical decision-making in medical students and doctors. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Screening against the inclusion/exclusion criteria, first using titles/abstracts and then full text, was conducted independently by EJ and one other author. Disagreements were discussed and resolved by the full team. Data from included studies were used to create an overarching framework and typology of clinical uncertainty relevant to EBM, which was then mapped to published EBM competencies.
results44 of 3048 papers met the inclusion criteria. The overarching framework and typology described types of uncertainty, properties and modifiers of the uncertainty, which led to responses and strategies that clinicians adopted within conditions of uncertainty. The mapping process revealed that EBM competencies focus on the theoretical, technical and cognitive aspects of clinical uncertainty, and tend to neglect real-world clinical decision-making, doctor-patient interaction and behavioural/emotional responses to uncertainty.
conclusionThe new framework and typology facilitate better conversations about uncertainty within everyday clinical practice. Findings from the mapping exercise can help medical educators to better align EBM teaching with clinical practice, helping them to better prepare doctors for clinical uncertainty. The findings enable different parts of medical curricula to forge stronger connections, for example, linking EBM teaching, communication skills teaching and clinical placements.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.