Article

Against diagnosis.

Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York 10021, USA.
Annals of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 16.1). 08/2008; 149(3):200-3.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The act of diagnosis requires that patients be placed in a binary category of either having or not having a certain disease. Accordingly, the diseases of particular concern for industrialized countries--such as type 2 diabetes, obesity, or depression--require that a somewhat arbitrary cut-point be chosen on a continuous scale of measurement (for example, a fasting glucose level >6.9 mmol/L [>125 mg/dL] for type 2 diabetes). These cut-points do not adequately reflect disease biology, may inappropriately treat patients on either side of the cut-point as 2 homogenous risk groups, fail to incorporate other risk factors, and are invariable to patient preference. This article discusses risk prediction as an alternative to diagnosis: Patient risk factors (blood pressure, age) are combined into a single statistical model (risk for a cardiovascular event within 10 years) and the results are used in shared decision making about possible treatments. The authors compare and contrast the diagnostic and risk prediction approaches and attempt to identify the types of medical problem to which each is best suited.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Ethan Basch, Jun 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
94 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper represents a preliminary investigation relating Bernard Lonergan's thought to health science and the healing arts. First, I provide background for basic elements of Lonergan's theoretical terminology that I employ. As inquiry is the engine of Lonergan's method, next I specify two questions that underlie medical insights and define several terms, including health, disease, and illness, in relation to these questions. Then I expand the frame of reference to include all disciplines involved in the cycle of clinical interaction under the heading health science and the healing arts. Finally, I analyze the cycle of clinical interaction in terms of Lonergan's cognitive theory. I compare and contrast my analysis, based on Lonergan, with that of Pellegrino, Thomasma and Sulmasy as I proceed. In closing, I comment briefly on the next stage of this project regarding Lonergan's theory of the human good in relation to the practice of the healing arts.
    Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 02/2009; 30(2):147-60. DOI:10.1007/s11017-009-9101-9 · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: National guidelines disagree on who should be screened for undiagnosed diabetes. No existing diabetes risk score is highly generalizable or widely followed. To develop a new diabetes screening score and compare it with other available screening instruments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Diabetes Association, and U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines; 2 American Diabetes Association risk questionnaires; and the Rotterdam model). Cross-sectional data. NHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey) 1999 to 2004 for model development and 2005 to 2006, plus a combined cohort of 2 community studies, ARIC (Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities) Study and CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study), for validation. U.S. adults aged 20 years or older. A risk-scoring algorithm for undiagnosed diabetes, defined as fasting plasma glucose level of 7.0 mmol/L (126 mg/dL) or greater without known diabetes, was developed in the development data set. Logistic regression was used to determine which participant characteristics were independently associated with undiagnosed diabetes. The new algorithm and other methods were evaluated by standard diagnostic and feasibility measures. Age, sex, family history of diabetes, history of hypertension, obesity, and physical activity were associated with undiagnosed diabetes. In NHANES (ARIC/CHS), the cut-point of 5 or more points selected 35% (40%) of persons for diabetes screening and yielded a sensitivity of 79% (72%), specificity of 67% (62%), positive predictive value of 10% (10%), and positive likelihood ratio of 2.39 (1.89). In contrast, the comparison scores yielded a sensitivity of 44% to 100%, specificity of 10% to 73%, positive predictive value of 5% to 8%, and positive likelihood ratio of 1.11 to 1.98. Data during pregnancy were not available. This easy-to-implement diabetes screening score seems to demonstrate improvements over existing methods. Studies are needed to evaluate it in diverse populations in real-world settings. Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College.
    Annals of internal medicine 12/2009; 151(11):775-83. DOI:10.1059/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00005 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The author argues that the well-formulated problem list is essential for both organizing and evaluating diagnostic thinking. He considers evidence of deficiencies in problem lists in the medical record. He observes a trend among medical trainees toward organizing notes in the medical record according to lists of organ systems or medical subspecialties and hypothesizes that system-based documentation may undermine the art of problem formulation and diagnostic synthesis. Citing research linking more sophisticated problem representation with diagnostic success, he suggests that documentation style and clinical reasoning are closely connected and that organ-based documentation may predispose trainees to several varieties of cognitive diagnostic error and deficient synthesis. These include framing error, premature or absent closure, failure to integrate related findings, and failure to recognize the level of diagnostic resolution attained for a given problem. He acknowledges the pitfalls of higher-order diagnostic resolution, including the application of labels unsupported by firm evidence, while maintaining that diagnostic resolution as far as evidence permits is essential to both rational care of patients and rigorous education of learners. He proposes further research, including comparison of diagnostic efficiency between organ- and problem-oriented thinkers. He hypothesizes that the subspecialty-based structure of academic medical services helps perpetuate organ-system-based thinking, and calls on clinical educators to renew their emphasis on the formulation and documentation of complete and precise problem lists and progressively refined diagnoses by trainees.
    Academic medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 10/2010; 85(10):1578-82. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181f06c67 · 3.47 Impact Factor