Article

Ehud Zamir ezamir at UNIMELB.EDU.AU
Thu Sep 5 03:05:55 UTC 2013


If I see a patient with a diagnosis  X which has been made elsewhere, and that diagnosis happens to be incorrect, and if the patient actually has problem Y (unequivocally, when worked up properly) then a study showing that I am more likely to conclude Y than X if I see the patient before reading the referral letter, the point is proven. For instance, X can be an exacerbation of COPD and Y can be a PE. The latter can usually be proven, and once proven, the PE is the "gold standard". To prove the point one would chose situations where it is easy to accept a gold standard, unequivocal diagnosis.
The author does not advocate diagnosing "without history" but only diagnosing independently first. He says it at the start of the paper: "The history helps. Interpreting images while unaware of the patient’s problem is foolish. If you aren’t sure what the question is, it’s tough to give the right answer."
Ehud

________________________________
From: Swerlick, Robert A [rswerli at emory.edu]
Sent: Thursday, 5 September 2013 12:28 PM
To: Society to Improve Diagnosis in Medicine; Ehud Zamir
Cc: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG
Subject: Re: [IMPROVEDX] Article

I am still skeptical. These studies show that results using a subjective test obtained without history are different from those obtained with a history. But where is the gold standard? Which one is right?

Robert A. Swerlick, MD

On Sep 4, 2013, at 6:54 PM, "Ehud Zamir" <ezamir at UNIMELB.EDU.AU<mailto:ezamir at UNIMELB.EDU.AU>> wrote:

Following our discussion here a  about the merits of forming an unbiased opinion prior to reading previous information, I found a paper which talks exactly about that, by N. Thorne Griscom, MD from the Children's Hospital in Boston: A Suggestion: Look at the Images First, Before You Read The History. Radiology, April 2002, 9-10. It is a short but well written paper. It's free online, on http://radiology.rsna.org/content/223/1/9.long

I believe it applies to any diagnostic situation where a patient is referred by another doctor with assumptions and diagnoses already made by someone else.

Ehud Zamir


________________________________

Address messages to: IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>

To unsubscribe from IMPROVEDX: click the following link:
http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?SUBED1=IMPROVEDX&A=1

or send email to: IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG<mailto:IMPROVEDX-SIGNOFF-REQUEST at LIST.IMPROVEDIAGNOSIS.ORG>

Visit the searchable archives or adjust your subscription at: http://list.improvediagnosis.org/scripts/wa-IMPDIAG.exe?INDEX

Moderator: Lorri Zipperer Lorri at ZPM1.com<mailto:Lorri at ZPM1.com>, Communication co-chair, Society for Improving Diagnosis in Medicine

To learn more about SIDM visit:
http://www.improvediagnosis.org/

Save the date: Diagnostic Error in Medicine 2013. September 22-25, 2013 in Chicago, IL.
http://www.dem2013.org

________________________________

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).








HTML Version:
URL: <../attachments/20130905/a54e03f8/attachment.html>


More information about the Test mailing list