Cited by 150Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and EducationClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

10 years of mindlines: a systematic review and commentary

Open access
Wieringa, Sietse, Greenhalgh, Trisha·2015·Implementation Science

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2004, Gabbay and le May showed that clinicians generally base their decisions on mindlines-internalised and collectively reinforced tacit guidelines-rather than consulting written clinical guidelines. We considered how the concept of mindlines has been taken forward since. METHODS: We searched databases from 2004 to 2014 for the term 'mindline(s)' and tracked all sources citing Gabbay and le May's 2004 article. We read and re-read papers to gain familiarity and developed an interpretive analysis and taxonomy by drawing on the principles of meta-narrative systematic review. RESULTS: In our synthesis of 340 papers, distinguished between authors who used mindlines purely in name ('nominal' view) sometimes dismissing them as a harmful phenomenon, and authors who appeared to have understood the term's philosophical foundations. The latter took an 'in-practice' view (studying how mindlines emerge and spread in real-world settings), a 'theoretical and philosophical' view (extending theory) or a 'solution focused' view (exploring how to promote and support mindline development). We found that it is not just clinicians who develop mindlines: so do patients, in face-to-face and (potentially) online communities. Theoretical publications on mindlines have continued to challenge the rationalist assumptions of evidence-based medicine (EBM). Conventional EBM assumes a single, knowable reality and seeks to strip away context to generate universal predictive rules. In contrast, mindlines are predicated on a more fluid, embodied and intersubjective view of knowledge; they accommodate context and acknowledge multiple realities. When considering how knowledge spreads, the concept of mindlines requires us to go beyond the constraining notions of 'dissemination' and 'translation' to study tacit knowledge and the interactive human processes by which such knowledge is created, enacted and shared. Solution-focused publications described mindline-promoting initiatives such as relationship-building, collaborative learning and thought leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The concept of mindlines challenges the naïve rationalist view of knowledge implicit in some EBM publications, but the term appears to have been misunderstood (and prematurely dismissed) by some authors. By further studying mindlines empirically and theoretically, there is potential to expand EBM's conceptual toolkit to produce richer forms of 'evidence-based' knowledge. We outline a suggested research agenda for achieving this goal.

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 · 10.1186/s13012-015-0229-x

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 103 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wieringa, S., & Greenhalgh, T.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Wieringa, Sietse
Venue
Implementation Science
Published
2015-04-09
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
45-45
ISSN
1748-5908 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2143333618
Cited by
150
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Implementation Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (IPF-12-16, NF-SI-0512-10031)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
tacit knowledge, clinical decision-making, clinical guidelines, critique of evidence-based medicine, knowledge dissemination, knowledge translation, embodied knowledge, intersubjectivity, patient knowledge, cooperative learning, thought leadership, research agenda
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Physicians, Guideline Adherence

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