Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-lkb8j Total loading time: 0.614 Render date: 2022-01-17T05:18:53.969Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Chapter 12 - Challenges for Evidence-Based Diagnosis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 May 2020

Thomas B. Newman
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Michael A. Kohn
Affiliation:
University of California, San Francisco
Get access

Summary

We wrestled for a long time with the question of whether to include the term “evidence-based” in the title of the first edition of this book. Although both of us are firm believers in the principles and goals of evidence-based medicine (EBM), as articulated by its first proponents[1] we also knew that the term “evidence-based” would be viewed negatively by some potential readers [2–4]. We decided to keep “evidence-based” in the title and use this chapter to directly address some of the criticisms of EBM, many of which we believe have merit. We also recognize that, as elegant and satisfying as evidence-based diagnosis is, there are some very real cognitive barriers to applying it in a clinical setting. These barriers are the second topic of this chapter. Finally, we end the book with some thoughts on the future of evidence-based diagnosis and why it will be increasingly important.

Type
Chapter
Information
Evidence-Based Diagnosis
An Introduction to Clinical Epidemiology
, pp. 303 - 317
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. A new approach to teaching the practice of medicine. JAMA. 1992;268(17):2420–5.Google Scholar
Grahame-Smith, D. Evidence based medicine: Socratic dissent. BMJ (Clinical Research Ed). 1995;310(6987):1126–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lancet. Evidence-based medicine, in its place. Lancet. 1995;346(8978):785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Healy, B. Who says what’s best? US News and World Report. 2006; 9/11/2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, GC, Pell, JP. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, H. How do you feel about Evidence-Based Medicine. 2012 Available from: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/how-do-you-feel-about-evidence-based-medicine/ accessed September 27, 2019.Google Scholar
Sox, HC. Conflict of interest in practice guidelines panels. JAMA. May 2, 2017;317(17):1739–40. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2701. PubMed PMID: 28464160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, TB, Pletcher, MJ, Hulley, SB. Overly aggressive new guidelines for lipid screening in children: evidence of a broken process. Pediatrics. 2012;130(2):349–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siu, AL, Force USPST. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96.Google ScholarPubMed
Welch, HG. Cancer screening, overdiagnosis, and regulatory capture. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(7):915–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merenstein, D. A piece of my mind. Winners and losers. JAMA. 2004;291(1):15–6.Google ScholarPubMed
USPSTF. Screening for prostate cancer: recommendation and rationale. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137(11):915–6.Google Scholar
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Grossman, DC, Curry, SJ, Owens, DK, et al. Screening for prostate cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(18):1901–13.Google ScholarPubMed
Brase, T.Evidence-based medicine”: rationing care, hurting patients. Washington: American Legislative Exchange Council; 2008.Google Scholar
Woolf, SH, George, JN. Evidence-based medicine. Interpreting studies and setting policy. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am. 2000;14(4):761–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Newman, TB, Maisels, MJ. Less aggressive treatment of neonatal jaundice and reports of kernicterus: lessons about practice guidelines. Pediatrics. 2000;105(1 Pt 3):242–5.Google ScholarPubMed
Gøtzsche, PC, Smith, R, Rennie, D. Deadly medicines and organised crime: how big pharma has corrupted healthcare. London: Radcliffe Publishing; 2013. xii, 310pp.Google Scholar
Taibbi, M. The divide: American injustice in the age of the wealth gap. 1st ed. New York: Spiegel & Grau; 2014. xxiii, 416pp.Google Scholar
Brush, JE Jr., Sherbino, J, Norman, GR. How expert clinicians intuitively recognize a medical diagnosis. Am J Med. 2017; 130(6):629–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elstein, AS. Thinking about diagnostic thinking: a 30-year perspective. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2009;14(Suppl 1):718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrows, HS, Norman, GR, Neufeld, VR, Feightner, JW. The clinical reasoning of randomly selected physicians in general medical practice. Clin Invest Med. 1982;5(1):4955.Google ScholarPubMed
Galli, JA, Sawaya, RA, Friedenberg, FK. Cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome. Curr Drug Abuse Rev. 2011;4(4):241–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phelps, MA, Levitt, MA. Pretest probability estimates: a pitfall to the clinical utility of evidence-based medicine? Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(6):692–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dolan, JG, Bordley, DR, Mushlin, AI. An evaluation of clinicians’ subjective prior probability estimates. Med Decis Making. 1986;6(4):216–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cahan, A, Gilon, D, Manor, O, Paltiel, O. Probabilistic reasoning and clinical decision-making: do doctors overestimate diagnostic probabilities? QJM. 2003;96(10):763–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cahan, A, Gilon, D, Manor, O, Paltiel, O. Clinical experience did not reduce the variance in physicians’ estimates of pretest probability in a cross-sectional survey. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(11):1211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A, Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. 1974;185:1124–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, CW. Summary statistics for acute cardiac ischemia and chest pain visits to United States EDs, 1995–1996. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17(6):552–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohn, MA, Kwan, E, Gupta, M, Tabas, JA. Prevalence of acute myocardial infarction and other serious diagnoses in patients presenting to an urban emergency department with chest pain. J Emerg Med. 2005;29(4):383–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Detmer, DE, Fryback, DG, Gassner, K. Heuristics and biases in medical decision-making. J Med Educ. 1978;53(8):682–3.Google ScholarPubMed
Bornstein, BH, Emler, AC. Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(2):97107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, Michael. The undoing project: a friendship that changed our minds. New York: W.W.Norton & Company; 2017. ISBN: 978-0-393-25459-4.Google Scholar
Brewer, NT, Chapman, GB, Schwartz, JA, Bergus, GR. The influence of irrelevant anchors on the judgments and choices of doctors and patients. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(2):203–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D. Thinking, fast and slow. 1st ed. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux; 2011. 499pp.Google Scholar
Dawson, NV, Arkes, HR. Systematic errors in medical decision making: judgment limitations. J Gen Intern Med. 1987;2(3):183–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sox, CM, Koepsell, TD, Doctor, JN, Christakis, DA. Pediatricians’ clinical decision making: results of 2 randomized controlled trials of test performance characteristics. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2006;160(5):487–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berner, ES, Graber, ML. Overconfidence as a cause of diagnostic error in medicine. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S2–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Croskerry, P, Norman, G. Overconfidence in clinical decision making. Am J Med. 2008;121(5 Suppl):S24–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kahneman, D, Slovic, P, Tversky, A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. xiii, 555pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, WM, Roth, BJ, Psaty, B, et al. Predictors of myocardial infarction in emergency room patients. Crit Care Med. 1985;13(7):526–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davison, G, Suchman, AL, Goldstein, BJ. Reducing unnecessary coronary care unit admissions: a comparison of three decision aids. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5(6):474–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pantell, RH, Newman, TB, Bernzweig, J, et al. Management and outcomes of care of fever in early infancy. JAMA. 2004;291(10):1203–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Groopman, JE. How doctors think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 2007. 307pp.Google Scholar
Cardall, T, Glasser, J, Guss, DA. Clinical value of the total white blood cell count and temperature in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(10):1021–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilbride, MK, Joffe, S. The new age of patient autonomy: implications for the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 2018;320(19):1973–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×