Brasil
Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia
Sumário Anterior Atual Seguinte
Sumário
Review Article • Arq. Bras. Cardiol. 119 (5) • Nov 2022 • https://doi.org/10.36660/abc.20220002 linkcopy

Open-access Clinical Reasoning in Cardiology: Past, Present and Future

AuthorshipSCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Abstract

Clinical reasoning was born 2,500 years ago with Hippocrates, having evolved over the centuries, becoming a mixture of art and science. Several personalities throughout history have contributed to improving diagnostic accuracy. Nonetheless, diagnostic error is still common and causes a severe impact on healthcare systems. To face this challenge, several clinical reasoning models have emerged to systematize the clinical thinking process. This paper describes the history of clinical reasoning and current diagnostic reasoning methods, proposes a new clinical reasoning model, called Integrative Reasoning, and brings perspectives about the future of clinical reasoning.

Diagnostic Errors; Cardiology; Cardiovascular System; History of Medicine

Resumo

O raciocínio clínico nasceu 2500 anos atrás com Hipócrates, tendo evoluído ao longo dos séculos, e se tornado uma mistura de arte e ciência. Várias personalidades ao longo da história contribuíram para melhorar a acurácia diagnóstica. Contudo, o erro diagnóstico é ainda comum e causa um grande impacto nos sistemas de saúde. Para lidar com esse desafio, vários modelos de raciocínio clínico surgiram para sistematizar o processo de pensamento clínico. Este artigo descreve a história do raciocínio clínico e os métodos atuais de raciocínio diagnóstico, propõe um novo modelo de raciocínio clínico chamado Raciocínio Integrativo, e traz perspectivas sobre o futuro do raciocínio clínico.

Erros de Diagnóstico; Cardiologia; Sistema Cardiovascular; História da Medicina

Introduction

Clinical diagnosis was born 2,500 years ago with Hippocrates, having evolved over the centuries, and become a mixture of art and science. Many personalities throughout the history of medicine have contributed to improving diagnostic accuracy. However, diagnostic error is still very common, with previous studies in outpatient clinics in the USA showing a 5% prevalence of errors.1 , 2 Furthermore, a report from the World Health Organization (WHO) showed that about 138 million people are affected by medical errors annually, of which 2.6 million have lost their lives.3 It is known that the differential diagnostic capacity and diagnostic accuracy tend to improve with clinical experience.4 Recent studies however have shown that it is difficult for physicians to make assertive decisions. This phenomenon is further aggravated by the fact that clinical reasoning and cognitive processes involved in the physician’s decision-making process are not well covered in medical schools’ curricula.4 Typically, more experienced doctors will need less data to reach the same conclusion as less experienced doctors or doctors in training.4

Teaching clinical reasoning is challenging, since it is subjective and requires multiple skills (e.g. history taking, physical examination, to order appropriate complement tests, and to think about differential diagnoses).5 In cardiology, the challenge is even greater, due to the overlap of symptoms between different cardiovascular diseases.5 Recently, many authors have suggested tools to systematize the clinical thinking process, reduce diagnostic errors and facilitate teaching to undergraduate students and less experienced physicians.6 Nonetheless, reviews that address clinical reasoning in cardiology in a comprehensive manner are scarce. Therefore, this paper describes the history of clinical reasoning and current diagnostic reasoning methods, and proposes a new clinical reasoning model, called Integrative Reasoning, and brings perspectives about the future of clinical reasoning.

Past

Clinical reasoning is the mental process used by physicians to generate diagnostic hypotheses for a disease. It plays an important role in the medical ability to formulate and test diagnostic hypothesis, solve problems, and make assertive decisions.7 Thus, it is considered the center of medical competence and an integral part of clinical practice, coupled with the experiences accumulated throughout one’s career.8 Therefore, clinical reasoning is a continuous, non-linear, extremely complex process that requires cognitive processes, acquisition of theoretical and practical knowledge, problem-solving capacity, and metacognition.9

Historically, clinical diagnosis has emerged with Hippocrates (2,380 years ago, in 370 B.C.). Many physicians have made significant contributions over the history, with the discovery of diseases and their pathophysiological processes, and development of technologies to improve physical examination.10 Particularly for heart disease, the drawings of Andreas Vesalius and the description of blood circulation and cardiac physiology by William Harvey were the first steps towards the foundation of modern cardiology.11 - 14 Years later, Giovanni Battista Morgagni published his great work: “ De Sedibus et Causis Morborum per Anatomen Indagatis ” (Of the sites and causes of disease, investigated by autopsy ) , for which he was marked as the founder of pathological anatomy, which allowed the association of autopsies with patient’s clinical status.15 , 16

The French school was another great contributor to the birth of modern cardiology. Importantly, Corvisart with the valorization of a detailed bedside anamnesis and physical examination.17 Beyond that, Corvisart reintroduced and perfected the method of chest percussion in clinical diagnosis, translating Leopold von Auenbrugger’s manuscript “Inventum Novum” from Latin into French.17 This fact led to his recognition as the founder of clinical cardiology. Still from the French school, René Théophile Hyacinthe Laennec invented the stethoscope, an indispensable instrument to perform a thorough physical examination, capable of bringing key points for the cognitive process of formulating the diagnosis.18 Laennec coined and described several terms used until today, such as “vesicular murmur”, “bronchial sounds”, “crackling”, “snoring”, “pectoriloquy”, “egophony” and “pleural friction rub”.19 Another member of the French School, Marie-François-Xavier Bichat discovered the independence of the heart from the brain, the first step to understand the cardiac conduction system.20 , 21

Moving on to the German school, Rudolf Ludwig Karl Virchow and William Osler must be acknowledged for their prominence in building medical thinking in the diagnosis of cardiovascular disease. Virchow coined terms that are still used today, such as thrombosis, embolism, agenesis, chromatin, parenchyma, myelin, leukocytosis, leukemia, endarteritis, amyloid, degeneration, and osteoid, in addition to performing the description of the mechanism of thrombus formation in blood vessels, known as Virchow’s triad.22 , 23 Osler highlighted the importance of the physician-patient relationship, observation, and scientific rigor, and of assessing the patient and symptoms in detail, describing each change in the physical examination.24 Another major contribution of his work was the creation of medical residency, in defense of continuous medical education.25 Osler also created the so-called “Osler’s Rule” - each patient should be given only one diagnosis that explains his disease - which was followed until the 20th century when patients had a low life expectancy and therefore died before they developed multiple comorbidities.25

Another physician of importance was Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle, of the Edinburgh school. Sir Arthur Doyle, inspired by the art of deduction of his teacher Dr. Joseph Bell, created the character Sherlock Holmes, described as a meticulous investigator, which shows how Sir Doyle viewed the importance of constructing scripts in the formulation of diagnosis.26 , 27

After the period of anatomopathological studies and meticulous analysis of patients’ symptoms, new tools to aid diagnosis in cardiology were developed, especially the electrocardiogram (1902), by the Dutch physiologist Willem Einthoven. Then, Dr. Paul Dudley White contributed to the discovery of important electrocardiographic findings that are still part of problem lists today, with emphasis on the description of the Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome.28 , 29

Another important name in the history of the development of clinical reasoning, Paul Hamilton Wood, is recognized as an icon in the transition from ancient to modern cardiology, as are Paul Dudley White and Ignacio Chávez Sánchez.30 , 31 Wood redefined the Eisenmenger Complex as a pathological state attributed to pulmonary hypertension with an inverted or bidirectional shunt, which would minimize its effects. He also described that pulmonary hypertension is capable of producing pulmonary arterial vasoconstriction,30 which can be reversed by injection of acetylcholine into the pulmonary artery, and drafted that pulmonary arterial vasoconstriction would act as a protective mechanism against acute pulmonary edema.31 , 32 Ignacio Chávez Sánchez contributed to the description of the clinical findings of pulmonary hypertension. In addition to bringing Mexican cardiology to the forefront, he laid the foundation to include humanism as the great driving force behind medical actions; this is important for the establishment of a good doctor-patient relationship and favors the collection of information in the anamnesis and physical examination.33 , 34 Finally, the cardiologist Eugene Braunwald, who developed a calculation method that later became known as the ejection fraction, which became essential to evaluate the condition of heart failure.35 In 1967 Eugene Braunwald and his study group identified the main determinants of oxygen consumption: the development of tension, and the velocity and frequency of contraction.36 In 1984, he created the TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) Study Group,37 which involved several hospitals and compared streptokinase, an old drug, with alteplase, demonstrating the superiority of the latter, which was important for the approval of alteplase by the US Food and Drug Administration.36 Important contributions to the foundation of clinical reasoning in cardiology are described in Table 1 and Figure 1 .

Thumbnail
Table 1
Centuries of work for the understanding of diagnosis in cardiology, described by physicians and their main contributions

Figure 1
Most of these doctors have left their discoveries described in their books, which are mentioned in the figure. 17

Present

Today, clinical reasoning has been studied by researchers from various fields, such as medicine, education, clinical psychology, and cognitive psychology.38 - 40 These fields investigate the process in different ways, but are unanimous in noting that it is necessary skill for medical decision-making.39 In this context, cognitive psychology studies on cognition have brought important insights into mental processes.40 This area investigates issues such as metacognition, memory, pattern recognition, perception, attention, creativity, reasoning, and problem-solving.41 , 42 In this sense, we can state that cognitive psychology unites structural cognition with critical reasoning processes such as deductive and inductive reasoning, which generates the so-called systems thinking.

Clinical reasoning is governed by two systems of thought, known as “system 1” or general clinical reasoning, and “system 2” or clinical reasoning in particular; the interaction between these two systems determines the thinking. These systems are based on Daniel Kahneman’s book, “Thinking, Fast and Slow”.43 System 1 is fast, automatic, impulsive, and intuitive, and often acts without voluntary control. System 2, on the other hand, is calculating, deliberate, and analytical, and is responsible for reasoning and decision making. This last system seeks to focus on the object of interest and avoid distractions to achieve a goal.43

During the clinical reasoning process, pattern recognition resorts to system 1. Experienced physicians, after years of practice and case studies, tend to formulate the final diagnosis mainly through system 1, since the long journey of accumulating knowledge has allowed them to store a series of patterns, known as disease scripts. The method used by these more experienced doctors is also what Cognitive Psychology calls “heuristics”, which consists in simplifying the search for solutions when faced with a problem to save the mind effort.44 On the other hand, students and doctors who have just started their careers tend to use mainly system 2, since accumulation of experience and knowledge is gradual.

Heuristics is a model of rapid, non-analytical, intuitive reasoning to unconsciously establish the relationship between patient presentation and disease patterns stored in long-term memory. Heuristics are characterized by the rapidity with which the physician raises diagnostic hypotheses.44 , 45 This activity is required in the traditional model of scientific reasoning called hypothetico-deductive reasoning, which consists of finding a solution to a problem using attempts (conjectures, hypotheses, theories) and eliminating errors.46 This method was born in scientific epistemology, the result of discussions about inductive versus deductive methods.47 According to this thinking, the doctor looks for a solution for a problem (disease) through possible answers, in a process of attempts, conjectures, and refutations.47 The set of data obtained about the patient’s problem is recorded and includes the first medical impression, the history, and the physical examination of the patient.48 The hypotheses found for the case are divided into main and alternative hypotheses. The physician tests the hypotheses until finding a degree of probability that will be used to confirm the diagnosis and exclude others and guide the individualized therapeutic plan.37 In this model of reasoning, the physician’s experience in understanding diseases is placed as a determinant of the probability of a correct diagnosis. In this sense, researchers have begun to question how we can understand the reasoning pattern used by the experienced physician and bring it to the novice physician.49 The intensification of research in this area began in the 1970s when studies involving clinical reasoning showed that what differentiated students from experienced physicians was not the cognitive model, but the assertiveness and quality of the hypotheses. Therefore, according to this view, the accuracy of the initial hypothesis predicts the accuracy of the diagnosis.50

Illness scripts are the data stored in the memory, accessed when the physician is faced with a picture presented by a patient at the very beginning of the clinical reasoning process.51 The scripts are formed according to the experience lived by doctors and students, that is, they are organized based on the patterns of diseases analyzed along their trajectory. The more often the patterns are seen and discussed, the more refined the scripts become. However, the formation and establishment of illness scripts by the practitioner occur not only with the practical experience of but with studies and theoretical knowledge.51 , 52

After learning and accumulating many scripts, when presented to a patient’s disease, the physician uses of memorized diagnoses and picks the disease that quickly comes to mind because of its very similar characteristics with those seen at the occasion.44 This quick and very intuitive process involves the so-called “cognitive bias”, which is characterized by the use of shortcuts that lead in one direction to simplify thinking, i.e . a bias is a tendency or a distortion in favor or against something.45 This may lead to an incorrect diagnosis, and consequent transmission of inappropriate information to the patient, and initiation of inadequate therapy. There are several types of biases, and in Table 2 we describe the five most important ones in clinical practice and how to reduce their impact on diagnostic reasoning. Awareness of these biases can evoke analytic strategies to correct it, probably reducing the occurrence of diagnostic errors.38 , 56

Thumbnail
Table 2
The most important biases in clinical practice and how to reduce their impact on diagnostic reasoning

Similarly, the so-called “noise” is also likely to contribute to the occurrence of diagnostic errors. This concept was addressed in the book “Noise: a flaw in human judgment”, also by Daniel Kahneman, who defines this concept as “variability in judgments that should be identical.40 Furthermore, the book brings two main types of noise, the occasion noise, when external factors influence the decisions of an individual or a group, and the systemic noise, which describes the unwanted variability that happens when a group of experts tries to separately evaluate similar events. Having different opinions is healthy and important for medicine and knowledge building. However, when there is variability in judgments that should be identical, the diagnostic reasoning process becomes fuzzy and even more error-prone.40 Thus, according to Kahneman, when a combination of biases and noise occurs, complex errors occur.40

Integrative Reasoning

Based on evidence from cognitive theories, contemporary models of clinical diagnosis, and analysis of the errors mentioned in this article, we structured a proposal to approach clinical reasoning that we named Integrative Reasoning, which encompasses the steps detailed in Figure 2 . The first contact with the patient consists of a detailed history and physical examination. Next, the physician must organize the most important data, formulating a symptom chart and a problem list. This step is essential to transform the complaints brought by the patients into semantic qualifiers and a case summary. After analyzing this last step, we proceed to the formulation of hypotheses based on previous knowledge and learned patterns, and we already think about possible differential diagnoses, considering the epidemiology. At least three differential diagnoses should be listed. If necessary, complementary exams are requested, and low, medium or high-cost tests may be required. It is important to emphasize that, in the proposed model, when the diagnostic hypotheses are assertively made, the tests ordered will be those that are strictly necessary. After these steps, the final diagnosis is reached, but the process of metacognition must be carried out. When necessary, the physician can return to collection of data from patient’s history, generate new hypotheses, and/or request new tests. In this way, the physician can add or remove new data from the problem list and generate new hypotheses and differential diagnoses. Returning to the processes already applied involves metacognition, which is defined as the human ability to monitor and self-regulate cognitive processes and is based on the human characteristic of being aware of one’s actions and thoughts. Metacognition is important not only for the formulation of the final diagnosis, but also for doctors and students to recognize their limitations and difficulties, and especially to lose the fear of asking for a second opinion. This process is essential for the diagnosis of diseases, because the recurrent thinking during clinical reasoning may contain biases, noise, and lead to diagnostic error.40 , 45 Misdiagnosis is defined as the failure to establish a correct diagnosis at the appropriate time for a health problem (which may be life-threatening) or to communicate this explanation to the patient.54 Another factor that contributes to avoiding diagnostic errors is the encouragement of learning the mental processes of clinical reasoning early on during medical training. To this end, from the beginning of medical school, students should be encouraged to establish a good doctor-patient relationship in conjunction with detailed data collection, involvement of patient and family in the diagnosis, and careful review of test results.54 , 55 A complete medical history is of paramount importance for clinical reasoning. Then, discussions of the cases should be carried out and the process proposed above be followed. It is worth emphasizing the importance of formulating differential diagnoses, and reviewing the data collected and the proposed hypotheses. Also, students should be encouraged to practice asking for help from other professionals to discuss the case, understand the complementary exams, and formulate the final diagnosis.41 Moreover, the discussion of noise biases and diagnostic errors should be constantly promoted during training, and failure at any point of mental thinking during clinical reasoning can generate diagnostic errors.56 , 57 Furthermore, with the advance of technologies, the use of applications and websites that help in the formulation of differential diagnoses and hypotheses is inevitable and positive. However, some medical schools, especially the more traditional ones, still present a refusal to encourage these tools, and this is a barrier that must be overcome to improve the mental process of clinical reasoning of both students and physicians.50 , 57

Figure 2
Flowchart of medical reasoning in cardiology. CV: cardiovascular; Hx: history; PE: physical examination; DDx: differential diagnoses. 65

Future

Many tools hold promise on improving diagnostic accuracy and helping physicians to reach a final diagnosis. For example, artificial intelligence and Big Data will certainly play a role in selecting diseases with higher likelihood in each case presentation. This is the case of Isabel Healthcare,58 a medical tool that helps doctors to come up differential diagnoses and the CHAMPION study that demonstrated the clinical effectiveness of the CardioMEMS hemodynamic monitoring system to improve clinical management of patients with symptomatic heart failure. These devices can range from simple bracelets and watches to measure oxygen saturation, blood pressure, and heartbeat, to invasive hemodynamic devices to register volume status in heart failure patients.59 Telemedicine devices will also help to collect data and guide decision making from distance. Finally, 3D printing may one day be used to guide cardiac surgeons to plan surgeries with precision, avoiding undesirable outcomes.60 , 61

Conclusions

The development of clinical reasoning began centuries ago and is still in constant progression. However, this subject is not well explored by medical schools and residencies. As presented in this paper, the integrative reasoning model may serve as a simple and stepwise framework for diagnostic reasoning and removal of noise and biases, serving both experienced physicians and students in training. However, future studies are needed to validate this model.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the Clinical Reasoning blog for fostering and enriching clinical reasoning in Brazil and the world for years in a free and easily accessible way.

References

  • 1 Singh H, Meyer AN, Thomas EJ. The Frequency of Diagnostic Errors in Outpatient Care: Estimations from Three Large Observational Studies Involving US Adult Populations. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(9):727-31. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002627.
  • 2 Giardina TD, Sarkar U, Gourley G, Modi V, Meyer AN, Singh H. Online Public Reactions to Frequency of Diagnostic Errors in US Outpatient Care. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3(1):17-22. doi: 10.1515/dx-2015-0022.
  • 3 World Health Organization. Patient Safety. Geneva: WHO; 2019 [cited 2021 Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety .
    » https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/patient-safety
  • 4 Gunderson CG, Bilan VP, Holleck JL, Nickerson P, Cherry BM, Chui P, et al. Prevalence of Harmful Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalised Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;29(12):1008-18. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2019-010822.
  • 5 Melo M, Scarpin DJ, Amaro E Jr, Passos RB, Sato JR, Friston KJ, et al. How Doctors Generate Diagnostic Hypotheses: A Study of Radiological Diagnosis with Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28752. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028752.
  • 6 Melo M, Gusso GDF, Levites M, Amaro E Jr, Massad E, Lotufo PA, et al. How Doctors Diagnose Diseases and Prescribe Treatments: An fMRI Study of Diagnostic Salience. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1304. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-01482-0.
  • 7 Pelaccia T, Tardif J, Triby E, Charlin B. An Analysis of Clinical Reasoning Through a Recent and Comprehensive Approach: The Dual-process Theory. Med Educ Online. 2011;16. doi: 10.3402/meo.v16i0.5890.
  • 8 Thomson OP, Petty NJ, Moore AP. Clinical reasoning in osteopathy–more than just principles? Int J Osteopath Med 2011; 14(2):71-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijosm.2010.11.003.
  • 9 Delany C, Golding C. Teaching Clinical Reasoning by Making Thinking Visible: An Action Research Project with Allied Health Clinical Educators. BMC Med Educ. 2014;14:20. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-14-20.
  • 10 Cheng TO. Hippocrates and Cardiology. Am Heart J. 2001;141(2):173-83. doi: 10.1067/mhj.2001.112490.
  • 11 Power D. A Revised Chapter in the Life of Dr. William Harvey, 1636. Proc R Soc Med. 1917;10(Sect Hist Med):33-59.
  • 12 Porto MA. A circulação do sangue, ou o movimento no conceito de movimento. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 1994;1(1):19-34.
  • 13 Rebollo RA. A Difusão da Doutrina da Circulação do Sangue: A Correspondência entre William Harvey e Caspar Hoffmann em Maio de 1636. Hist Cienc Saude Manguinhos. 2002;9(3):479-513. doi: 10.1590/s0104-59702002000300002.
  • 14 Ribatti D. William Harvey and the discovery of the circulation of the blood. J Angiogenesis Res. 2009;1(1):3. doi: 10.1186/2040-2384-1-3.
  • 15 Öncel Ç, Baser S. Giovanni Battista Morgagni (1682-1771). J Neurol. 2016;263(5):1050-2. doi: 10.1007/s00415-015-7936-8.
  • 16 van den Tweel JG, Taylor CR. A brief History of Pathology: Preface to a Forthcoming Series that Highlights Milestones in the Evolution of Pathology as a Discipline. Virchows Arch. 2010;457(1):3-10. doi: 10.1007/s00428-010-0934-4.
  • 17 Karamanou M, Vlachopoulos C, Stefanadis C, Androutsos G. Professor Jean-Nicolas Corvisart des Marets (1755-1821): Founder of Modern Cardiology. Hellenic J Cardiol. 2010;51(4):290-3.
  • 18 Donoso FA, Arriagada SD. René Théophile Hyacinthe Laënnec (1781-1826). Two Hundred Years of the Stethoscope. A Brief Overview. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2020;118(5):444-8. doi: 10.5546/aap.2020.eng.e444.
  • 19 Reichert P. A History of the Development of Cardiology as a Medical Specialty. Clin Cardiol. 1978;1(1):5-15. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960010102.
  • 20 Shoja MM, Tubbs RS, Loukas M, Shokouhi G, Ardalan MR. Marie-François Xavier Bichat (1771-1802) and his Contributions to the Foundations of Pathological Anatomy and Modern Medicine. Ann Anat. 2008;190(5):413-20. doi: 10.1016/j.aanat.2008.07.004.
  • 21 van den Tweel JG, Taylor CR. A brief History of Pathology: Preface to a Forthcoming Series that Highlights Milestones in the Evolution of Pathology as a Discipline. Virchows Arch. 2010;457(1):3-10. doi: 10.1007/s00428-010-0934-4.
  • 22 Saracci R. Virchow, a Model for Epidemiologists. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2009;63(3):185. doi: 10.1136/jech.2008.083204.
  • 23 Ventura HO. Profiles in Cardiology. Rudolph Virchow and Cellular Pathology. Clin Cardiol. 2000;23(7):550-2. doi: 10.1002/clc.4960230717.
  • 24 Young P, Finn BC, Bruetman JE, Emery JD, Buzzi A. William Osler: El Hombre y sus Descripciones. Rev Med Chil. 2012;140(9):1218-27. doi: 10.4067/S0034-98872012000900018.
  • 25 Stone MJ. The Wisdom of Sir William Osler. Am J Cardiol. 1995;75(4):269-76. doi: 10.1016/0002-9149(95)80034-p.
  • 26 Pai-Dhungat JV, Parikh F. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (1859 -1930). J Assoc Physicians India. 2015;63(3):86-7.
  • 27 Ball D. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle 1859-1930. Practitioner. 1975;215(1287):359-68.
  • 28 Tan SY, Kwock E. Paul Dudley White (1886-1973): Pioneer in Modern Cardiology. Singapore Med J. 2016;57(4):215-6. doi: 10.11622/smedj.2016075.
  • 29 White PD, Sattler RR. The Effect of Digitalis on the Normal Human Electrocardiogram, with Especial Reference to a-v Conduction. J Exp Med. 1916;23(5):613-29. doi: 10.1084/jem.23.5.613.
  • 30 Humphreys JD, Young P. Paul Hamilton Wood (1907-1962): El Máximo Exponente de la Cardiología Clínica Británica del Siglo XX. Rev Med Chil. 2012;140(1):121–4.
  • 31 Camm J. The Contributions of Paul Wood to Clinical Cardiology. Heart Lung Circ. 2003;12(Suppl 1):10-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1444-2892.12.s1.1.x.
  • 32 Katz AM. Icons of Cardiology: Paul Hamilton Wood: Clinician - Scientist. Dialog Cardio Med. 2004;9:117–20.
  • 33 Hurst WJ, Fye BW, Martinez-Ríos MA. Professor Ignacio Chávez. Clin Cardiol. 2000;23(12):929.
  • 34 Pérez-Riera AR, Femenía F, Baranchuk A, Valdivia ME. Professor Dr. Ignacio Chávez Sánchez (1897-1979): Pioneer of Latin American Cardiology. Cardiol J. 2011;18(4):469-72.
  • 35 Braunwald E. Featuring: Eugene Braunwald. Eur Cardiol. 2019;14(2):130-3. doi: 10.15420/ecr.2019.14.2.CM1.
  • 36 Braunwald E. On the Frontiers of Cardiology: An Interview with Eugene Braunwald. Interview by Elaine Musgrave. Clin Transl Sci. 2010;3(6):275-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00244.x.
  • 37 Braunwald E, Nicholls M. Leaders in Cardiovascular Medicine. Eugene Braunwald MD: An Icon of the 20th Century Still Going Strong. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(22):1350-1. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehv101.
    » https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv101
  • 38 Elstein AS. Thinking About Diagnostic Thinking: A 30-Year Perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(Suppl 1):7-18. doi: 10.1007/s10459-009-9184-0.
  • 39 Higgs J, Jones M. Clinical decision making and multiple problem spaces. In: Higgs J, Jones MA, Loftus S, Christensen N, editors. Clinical Reasoning in Health Professions. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2008. p. 4-19.
  • 40 Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR. (2021). Noise: a flaw in human judgment . New York: Little, Brown Spark.
  • 41 Gurat MG, Jr CTM. Metacognitive Strategy Knowledge Use through Mathematical Problem Solving amongst Pre-service Teachers. Am J Ed Res. 2016;4(2):170-89. doi: 10.12691/education-4-2-5.
    » https://doi.org/10.12691/education-4-2-5
  • 42 Mendonca VS, Gallagher TH, Oliveira RA. The Function of Disclosing Medical Errors: New Cultural Challenges for Physicians. HEC Forum. 2019;31(3):167-75. doi: 10.1007/s10730-018-9362-7.
  • 43 Kahneman D. Rápido e devagar duas formas de pensar. São Paulo: Objetiva; 2002.
  • 44 Luz PM, Nadanovsky P, Leask J. How Heuristics and Cognitive Biases Affect Vaccination Decisions. Cad Saude Publica. 2020;36(Suppl 2):e00136620. doi: 10.1590/0102-311X00136620.
  • 45 Saposnik G, Redelmeier D, Ruff CC, Tobler PN. Cognitive Biases Associated with Medical Decisions: A Systematic Review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12911-016-0377-1.
  • 46 Pichardo-Rodríguez R, Cordova-Cueva LB, Saavedra-Velasco M. Critical Reading Of Clinical Studies. Practical Bases For The Resident Doctor Of Clinical Specialties. Rev la Fac Med Humana. 2021;21(3):630–7. doi: 10.25176/RFMH.v21i1.3166.
  • 47 Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Mansfield Centre CT: Martino Publishing; 2014.
  • 48 Réa-Neto A. Raciocínio Clínico--o Processo de Decisão Diagnóstica e Terapêutica. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992). 1998;44(4):301-11. doi: 10.1590/s0104-42301998000400009.
  • 49 Mamede S, Figueiredo-Soares T, Santos SME, Faria RMD, Schmidt HG, van Gog T. Fostering Novice Students’ Diagnostic Ability: The Value of Guiding Deliberate Reflection. Med Educ. 2019;53(6):628-37. doi: 10.1111/medu.13829.
  • 50 Mamede S, van Gog T, van den Berge K, Rikers RM, van Saase JL, van Guldener C, et al. Effect of Availability Bias and Reflective Reasoning on Diagnostic Accuracy Among Internal Medicine Residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198-203. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.1276.
  • 51 Charlin B, Boshuizen HP, Custers EJ, Feltovich PJ. Scripts and Clinical Reasoning. Med Educ. 2007;41(12):1178-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02924.x.
  • 52 Cox M, Irby DM. Educational Strategies to Promote Clinical Diagnostic Reasoning. Surv Anesthesiol. 2007;51(2):75.
  • 53 Garcia NAP. Erro Médico: Estudo da Responsabilidade Civil Dirigido ao Profissional da Saúde. Medical Error: Civil Liability Study Addressed to the Health Professional [Internet]. Botucatu: UNESP; 2020 [cited 2022 Mar 31]; Available from: https://repositorio.unesp.br/handle/11449/192233 .
    » https://repositorio.unesp.br/handle/11449/192233
  • 54 Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R. Diagnostic Error in Internal Medicine. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(13):1493-9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.165.13.1493.
  • 55 Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and Origins of Diagnostic Errors in Primary Care Settings. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(6):418-25. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777.
  • 56 Gaetani M, Parshuram C. The Error-berg: Reconceptualizing Medical Error as a Tool for Quality and Safety. Anesthesiology. 2019 Jul;131(1):154. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000002707.
  • 57 Croskerry P. The Importance of Cognitive Errors in Diagnosis and Strategies to Minimize Them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775-80. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003.
  • 58 Isabel Health Care. The Isabel Story [internet]. Ann Arbor: Isabel Health Care; 2021 [cited 2021Sep 27]. Available from: https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/ .
    » https://www.isabelhealthcare.com/
  • 59 Adamson PB, Abraham WT, Aaron M, Aranda JM Jr, Bourge RC, Smith A, et al. CHAMPION Trial Rationale and Design: The Long-term Safety and Clinical Efficacy of a Wireless Pulmonary Artery Pressure Monitoring System. J Card Fail. 2011;17(1):3-10. doi: 10.1016/j.cardfail.2010.08.002.
  • 60 Farooqi KM, Smerling J, Jorde UP. Application of 3D Printing Technology in Heart Failure. Heart Fail Clin. 2022;18(2):325-333. doi: 10.1016/j.hfc.2021.11.002.
  • 61 Mehta NJ, Khan IA. Cardiology’s 10 Greatest Discoveries of the 20th Century. Tex Heart Inst J. 2002;29(3):164-71.
  • 62 de la Calzada CS. A Framework for Clinical Reasoning in Adult Cardiology. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:489-95. doi: 10.2147/AMEP.S84708.
  • 63 Croskerry P, Singhal G, Mamede S. Cognitive Debiasing 1: Origins of Bias and Theory of Debiasing. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22 (Suppl 2):58-64. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001712.
  • 64 Wellbery C. Flaws in Clinical Reasoning: A Common Cause of Diagnostic Error. Am Fam Physician. 2011;84(9):1042-8.
  • 65 O’Sullivan ED, Schofield SJ. Cognitive Bias in Clinical Medicine. J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2018;48(3):225-32. doi: 10.4997/JRCPE.2018.306.
  • Study Association
    This study is not associated with any thesis or dissertation work.
  • Sources of Funding: There were no external funding sources for this study.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    24 Aug 2022
  • Date of issue
    Nov 2022

History

  • Received
    02 Jan 2022
  • Reviewed
    04 Apr 2022
  • Accepted
    01 June 2022
Creative Common - by 4.0
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
location_on
Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia - SBC Avenida Marechal Câmara, 160, sala: 330, Centro, CEP: 20020-907, (21) 3478-2700 - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil, Fax: +55 21 3478-2770 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@cardiol.br
rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS
Reportar erro