Clinical reasoning and clinical judgment in nursing research: A bibliometric analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: To characterize the thematic foci, structure, and evolution of nursing research on clinical reasoning and judgment. DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis. METHODS: We used a bibliometric method to analyze 1528 articles. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Scopus bibliographic database on January 7, 2024. RESULTS: Through a keyword co-occurrence analysis, we found the most frequent keywords to be clinical judgment, clinical reasoning, nursing education, simulation, nursing, clinical decision-making, nursing students, nursing assessment, critical thinking, nursing diagnosis, patient safety, nurses, nursing process, clinical competence, and risk assessment. The focal themes, structure, and evolution of nursing research on clinical reasoning and judgment were revealed by keyword mapping, clustering, and time-tracking. CONCLUSION: By assessing key nursing research areas, we extend the current discourse on clinical reasoning and clinical judgment for researchers, educators, and practitioners. Critical challenges must still be met by nursing professionals with regard to their use of clinical reasoning and judgment within their clinical practice. Further knowledge and comprehension of the clinical reasoning process and the development of clinical judgment must be successfully translated from research to nursing education and practice. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION: This study highlights the nursing knowledge gaps with regard to nurses' use of clinical reasoning and judgment and encourages nursing educators and professionals to focus on developing nurses' clinical reasoning and judgment with regard to their patients' safety. IMPACT: In addressing nurses' use of clinical reasoning and judgment, and with regard to patient safety in particular, this study found that, in certain clinical settings, the use of clinical reasoning and judgment remains a challenge for nursing professionals. This study should thus have an effect on nursing academics' research choices, on nursing educators' teaching practices, and on nurses' clinical practices. REPORTING METHOD: Relevant EQUATOR guidelines have been adhered to by employing recognized bibliometric reporting methods.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Bibliometrics Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.044 | 0.030 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it