» Articles » PMID: 15931337

Evidence-based Medicine: Answering Questions of Diagnosis

Overview
Journal Clin Med Res
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2005 Jun 3
PMID 15931337
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Using medical evidence to effectively guide medical practice is an important skill for all physicians to learn. The purpose of this article is to understand how to ask and evaluate questions of diagnosis, and then apply this knowledge to the new diagnostic test of CT colonography to demonstrate its applicability. Sackett and colleagues have developed a step-wise approach to answering questions of diagnosis: Step1: Define a clinical question and its four components: Patient, intervention, comparison and outcome. Step 2: Find the evidence that will help answer the question. PubMed Clinical Queries is an efficient database to accomplish this step. Step 3: Assess whether this evidence is valid and important. A quick review of the methods and results section will help to answer these two questions. Step 4: Apply the evidence to the patient. This step includes: assessing whether the test can be used; determining if it will help the patient; finding whether the study patients are similar to the patient in question; determining a pretest probability; and deciding if the test will change one's management of the patient. A relatively new diagnostic test, CT colonography, is explored as a scenario in which the steps presented by Sackett et al.1 can be helpful. A patient who is interested in completing a CT colonography instead of a colonoscopy is the basis of the discussion. Because a CT colonography does not detect polyps of less than 10 mm accurately, many patient are not likely to prefer this test over a colonoscopy. Evidence-based medicine is an effective strategy for finding, evaluating, and critically appraising diagnostic tests, treatment and application. This skill will help physicians interpret and explain the medical information patients read or hear about.

Citing Articles

Perspectives on the 2 × 2 Matrix: Solving Semantically Distinct Problems Based on a Shared Structure of Binary Contingencies.

Neth H, Gradwohl N, Streeb D, Keim D, Gaissmaier W Front Psychol. 2021; 11:567817.

PMID: 33633620 PMC: 7901600. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.567817.


The effect of nature exposure on the mental health of patients: a systematic review.

Trostrup C, Christiansen A, Stolen K, Nielsen P, Stelter R Qual Life Res. 2019; 28(7):1695-1703.

PMID: 30746588 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-019-02125-9.


Evaluating diagnostic accuracy of genetic profiles in affected offspring families.

Carayol J, Tores F, Konig I, Hager J, Ziegler A Stat Med. 2010; 29(22):2359-68.

PMID: 20623818 PMC: 2939926. DOI: 10.1002/sim.4006.


Clinical value of serum CA19-9 levels in evaluating resectability of pancreatic carcinoma.

Zhang S, Wang Y, Sun C, Lu Y, Wu L World J Gastroenterol. 2008; 14(23):3750-3.

PMID: 18595144 PMC: 2719240. DOI: 10.3748/wjg.14.3750.

References
1.
Welch H, Lurie J . Teaching evidence-based medicine: caveats and challenges. Acad Med. 2000; 75(3):235-40. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200003000-00010. View

2.
Sonnenberg A, Delco F, Bauerfeind P . Is virtual colonoscopy a cost-effective option to screen for colorectal cancer?. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999; 94(8):2268-74. DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.1999.01304.x. View

3.
Stiell I, Greenberg G, McKnight R, Nair R, McDowell I, Worthington J . A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1992; 21(4):384-90. DOI: 10.1016/s0196-0644(05)82656-3. View

4.
Miao Y, Amin Z, Healy J, Burn P, Murugan N, Westaby D . A prospective single centre study comparing computed tomography pneumocolon against colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal neoplasms. Gut. 2000; 47(6):832-7. PMC: 1728155. DOI: 10.1136/gut.47.6.832. View