Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 417

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical reasoning: concept analysis

Simmons, Barbara·2010·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

simmons b. (2010) Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing 66(5), 1151–1158. Title. Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Aim. This paper is a report of a concept analysis of clinical reasoning in nursing. Background. Clinical reasoning is an ambiguous term that is often used synonymously with decision‐making and clinical judgment. Clinical reasoning has not been clearly defined in the literature. Healthcare settings are increasingly filled with uncertainty, risk and complexity due to increased patient acuity, multiple comorbidities, and enhanced use of technology, all of which require clinical reasoning. Data sources. Literature for this concept analysis was retrieved from several databases, including CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, ERIC and OvidMEDLINE, for the years 1980 to 2008. Review methods. Rodgers’s evolutionary method of concept analysis was used because of its applicability to concepts that are still evolving. Results. Multiple terms have been used synonymously to describe the thinking skills that nurses use. Research in the past 20 years has elucidated differences among these terms and identified the cognitive processes that precede judgment and decision‐making. Our concept analysis defines one of these terms, ‘clinical reasoning,’ as a complex process that uses cognition, metacognition, and discipline‐specific knowledge to gather and analyse patient information, evaluate its significance, and weigh alternative actions. Conclusion. This concept analysis provides a middle‐range descriptive theory of clinical reasoning in nursing that helps clarify meaning and gives direction for future research. Appropriate instruments to operationalize the concept need to be developed. Research is needed to identify additional variables that have an impact on clinical reasoning and what are the consequences of clinical reasoning in specific situations.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

See all 417

Metadata

Authors
Simmons, B.
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-04
Volume
66
Issue
5
Pages
1151-1158
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2088756834
Cited by
417
References
51
FWCI
9.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x
The paper
Simmons, B. (2010). Clinical reasoning: concept analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05262.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.