DOCSLIB.ORG

Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-43671-7 — Evidence-Based Diagnosis 2Nd Edition Index More Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-43671-7 — Evidence-Based Diagnosis 2nd Edition Index More Information Index AAA. See abdominal aortic adjustment from anchor, in AUROC. See area under an aneurysm probability estimates, ROC curve ABCD2 Score, 339–40 310–11 AUSTRI trial, 216–17 ® abdominal aortic aneurysm Advair inhaler, 216–17 authors, of randomized trials, (AAA), reliability of age at first birth, college 206 testing for, 338 education and, 349 autism spectrum disorder with screening tests, 350 ALND. See axillary lymph node (ASD), 354–5 absolute risk increase (ARI), dissection autonomy, clinician, 306–7 221–2 α, 281 availability, in probability absolute risk reduction (ARR), Altman, Douglas, 290 estimates, 310 3, 215–17, 221–2 ambiguous test results, average standard deviation, 123 confidence intervals around, spectrum bias from axillary lymph node dissection 292–3 exclusion of, 86–97 (ALND), 79–80, 318–56 black belt, 295 American Cancer Society, blue belt, 294 305–6 B. See cost of failing to treat brown belt, 294–5 amoxicillin bacteremia green belt, 293–4 for bacteremia in newborns, classification trees for, 183, white belt, 293 292–5 185 yellow belt, 293 for OME, 344–5 in newborn, 5, 47–8 accuracy, 8–9, 12, 319–20 amylase, serum, 78–80 confidence intervals in in diagnostic test studies, anchoring bias, 311–12 negative studies of, 292–5 76–80 anticholinergic medication, for posterior probability for reliability in lieu of, 110 enuresis, 345–6 multi-level tests of, 60 of risk predictions antidepressants regret graphs for, 63–4 calibration in, 147–9, prenatal, 354–5 ROC curve and, 48–51, 55 152–67, 338–9 randomized trials with, bacterial meningitis discrimination in, 146, confidence intervals in, bias in diagnostic test studies 150–67, 338–9 353–4 of, 330 NRI and IDI for, 165–6 appendicitis classification trees for, 183, quantification of, 146–67, partial verification bias and, 185 338–9 83 ROC curve and, 51–2 recalibration and, 154 reliability of testing for, 333 base-rate neglect, 309, 311–12 ® acetaminophen (Tylenol ), speed bumps as diagnostic Bayes, Thomas, 3 355–6 tool for, 332 Bayesian statistical analysis. See ACI-TIPI. See Acute Coronary WBC count for, 313 also posterior Ischemia–Time area under an ROC curve probability; prior Insensitive Predictive (AUROC), 51 probability Instrument discrimination in risk of clinical trials, 291–2 acute cardiac ischemia, wall predictions and, 150–67 confidence intervals and, 290 motion abnormalities as Wilcoxon Rank Sum test P-values and, 282–4 test for, 80, 329 and, 54–5 benefit per bad outcome Acute Coronary ARI. See absolute risk increase prevented (BBOP), Ischemia–Time ARR. See absolute risk 218–21 Insensitive Predictive reduction β, 281 Instrument (ACI-TIPI), ASD. See autism spectrum between-group comparisons, in 192–3 disorder randomized trials, 214 acute ligamentous knee injury, 2 as-treated analysis, 211–13 bias ADHD. See attention deficit- attention deficit-hyperactivity anchoring, 311–12 hyperactivity disorder disorder (ADHD), 348 cognitive, 311 357 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-43671-7 — Evidence-Based Diagnosis 2nd Edition Index More Information Index bias (cont.) blinding, in randomized trials, for ICU Mortality confirmation, 311 208–9, 345 Probability Model, in diagnostic test studies, 78 blue belts, 294 153–67 application of, 100–1 BMD. See bone mineral density for low back pain, 152 differential verification, BNP. See B-type natriuretic mean bias, MAE, and Brier 81–2, 86–8, 329–30 peptide Score for, 147–9, 338–9 double gold standard, body packing, reliability of recalibration and, 154 81–2, 86–8, 329–30 testing for, 333–8 ROC curves compared imperfect gold standard, bone mineral density (BMD), with plots of, 151–67 81–2, 89–91, 330–2 test–retest reliability in, cancer screening tests incorporation, 78–82, 329 127–9 differential verification bias partial verification, 80–5, Bonferroni correction, 287–9 in, 86 330 in antidepressant in EBM, 304–6 spectrum, 81–2, 86–97, randomized trials, overdiagnosis in, 263–5 330 353–4 total v. cause-specific falsification tests for, 236–8, bootstrap aggregation, 196 mortality in, 266–9 348 branch, of classification trees, cannabinoid hyperemesis immortal time, 242, 349 181–2 syndrome, 308 mean, 147–9, 338–9 BRCA testing, referral Cardiac Arrhythmia in post-test probability screening tool for, Suppression Trial, 252 estimates, 311–13 321–39 cardiovascular disease in pre-test probability breast cancer, 5, 269–70 risk predictions for, 341–2 estimates, 309–11 ALND for staging of, 79–80, vitamin E for prevention of, publication, 161–2 318–56 231–2, 237 in randomized trials, 215 BRCA referral screening tool case-control sampling, 12–14, in screening test studies, for, 321–39 321 258–68 EBM and screening of, 304–6 in diagnostic test studies, lead-time, 260–1 likelihood ratios applied to, 75–7 length-time, 261–2 16–17, 21 categorical variables pseudodisease, 263–6 risk prediction studies for, disease definition and, 93–5 slippery linkage, 267–8 163 inter-observer agreement for, stage migration, 261–3, stage migration bias and, 111–21, 332–8 353 262–3 category-free NRI, 165–6 sticky diagnosis, 258–68 2×2 table method applied to, cause-specific mortality, total volunteer effect, 259–60 15–16 mortality v., 266–9 spectrum breast development, reliability CBOP. See cost per bad in bacterial meningitis of staging of, 131 outcome prevented findings, 330 unbalanced disagreement CDC. See US Centers for definition of, 81–2, 91–3 and, 116 Disease Control disease definition v., 93–5 weighted kappa for, 118–20 ceftriaxone, for post Lyme disease prevalence and, Brier Score, 147–9, 338–9 syndrome, randomized 94–5 brown belt, 294–5 trials of, 345 ESR and, 92–3 Browner, Warren, 285 CHD. See congenital heart exclusion of intermediate B-type natriuretic peptide disease test results and, 86–97 (BNP), 58–9, 80 chest pain sensitivity in, 81–2, 91–3 classification trees for, 183–4 specificity in, 81–2, 91–3 C. See cost of treating reliability of testing for, tests nonindependence nondisease 333–4 and, 177–8 CACE. See Complier Average chest wall motion, as test for bilirubin, partial verification Causal Effect acute cardiac ischemia, bias and, 83–5 Calibrated Finger Rub Auditory 80, 329 Bland–Altman plot, 128–9, 338 Screening Test chest x-ray, for lung cancer modified, 127–30 (CALFRAST), 327–8 screening, 350–1 variable types and, for calibration, 127–30 CHF. See congestive heart reliability, 110–11 in risk predictions, 146–9 failure 358 © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-43671-7 — Evidence-Based Diagnosis 2nd Edition Index More Information Index chorionic villus sampling conclusions, in diagnostic test congestive heart failure (CHF), (CVS), 5, 93–5, 178–83, studies, 76–80 BNP test in, 58–9, 80 186, 189–91 conditional independence continuous measurements, chromosomal abnormalities, in imperfect gold standard reliability in, 121 fetal, 5, 93–5, 178–83, bias, 89–90 calibration for, 127–30 186, 188–91 of tests, 175 test–retest, 121 classification trees, 181–5 conditional probability, 10 average standard deviation clinical decision making, confidence intervals, 280 and, 123 probability estimates v., for acetaminophen with correlation coefficient and, 312–13 vaccines, 355–6 123–5 clinical decision rules in antidepressant error by magnitude with, clinician v., 198 randomized trials, 125–7 EBM in future, 314–15 353–4 method comparison for, k-fold cross validation in, 196 around ARR, 292–3 127–9 logistic regression in black belt, 295 within-subject standard development of, 192–5 blue belt, 294 deviation/repeatability, overfitting and, 193–6 brown belt, 294–5 122–3 test selection for, 192–6 green belt, 293–4 continuous outcomes, risk clinical experience, statistical white belt, 293 predictions for, 164 expertise v., 304 yellow belt, 293 continuous test, 47 clinical trials, Bayesian analysis background on dichotomous, 47–8 of, 291–2 classical (frequentist) Grim Reaper walking speed, clinician statistics, 281–2 327 autonomy of, 306–7 stochastic and epistemic in hypothetical trial cases, clinical decision rules v., 198 probability, 280–1 326–7 EBM diagnostic errors and, definition of, 289–90 logistic regression for, 308–13 for epidural analgesia and 189–91 CMV. See cytomegalovirus C-section rates, 355 ROC curves in, 51–2 cognitive bias, 311 for Grim Reaper walking AUROC and, 51, 54–5 colic, testing for, 318 speed, 354 information in, 55 college education, age at first in prenatal antidepressant and likelihood ratio birth and, 349 autism studies, 354–5 relationship to, 57–9, colon cancer, screening tests P-values and, 292–3 325–6 for, 269–70 in sentinel-node biopsy optimal cutoffs and, 62–3 community-acquired v. axillary dissection, in signal detection theory, pneumonia, risk 356 49–50 predictions for, 340 for small numerators, for urinalysis, 323–5 comparison group, in 295–6 walking man approach to, randomized trials, 207 confirmation bias, 311 52–4 Complier Average Causal Effect confounding for WBC count in joint (CACE), 234 falsification tests for, 236–8, fluid, 322–3 composite endpoints, 209–10 348 WBC counts and, 48–51, computed tomography (CT), 4 in observational studies, 55 for AAA, reliability of testing 231–3 Wilcoxon Rank Sum test for, 338 propensity scores for, and, 54–5 for body packing, reliability 238–41, 348–9 WBC count, 47–8 of testing for, 333–8 randomized trials for continuous variables, 110–11 for lung cancer screening, minimization of, 205–6 disease definition and, 93, 350–1 in screening tests, 259–60 330 computed tomography confounding by indication, in randomized trials, 215 angiography (CTA), 231–3 cooling, of newborns, 291–2 spectrum bias in, 93 congenital CMV, screening copper standard.
Recommended publications
  • Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    Bbm:978-1-59745-385-1/1.Pdf

    INDEX A information bias .........................................................29 loss to follow-up bias ....................................... 175, 181 Accuracy minimizing methods of ................................... 181–182 clinical research data ................................................309 nonresponse bias ..............................................175, 181 diagnostic tests .................................................132–133 overmatching bias ....................................................176 Additive models, interaction in. See Interaction recall/memory bias ...........................................176–177 Address transparency .....................................................256 sampling bias ......................................................... 6, 29 ADL and Barthel index .................................................156 types of Alignment of research questions .................................... 300 confounding bias ................................................180 Allele-sharing method ...........................................191–194 information bias .........................................176–179 Allocation concealment ............................................... 6, 98 intervention (exposure) bias ................173, 179–180 Allocative efficiency ........................................237–239, 241 selection bias ...................................24, 25, 173–176 Alpha spending.............................................................. 117 Biomarkers Analyses confounding ....................................................
  • Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic As Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test

    Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic As Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test

    Working Memory, Cognitive Miserliness and Logic as Predictors of Performance on the Cognitive Reflection Test Edward J. N. Stupple ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Maggie Gale ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Christopher R. Richmond ([email protected]) Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby Kedleston Road, Derby. DE22 1GB Abstract Most participants respond that the answer is 10 cents; however, a slower and more analytic approach to the The Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) was devised to measure problem reveals the correct answer to be 5 cents. the inhibition of heuristic responses to favour analytic ones. The CRT has been a spectacular success, attracting more Toplak, West and Stanovich (2011) demonstrated that the than 100 citations in 2012 alone (Scopus). This may be in CRT was a powerful predictor of heuristics and biases task part due to the ease of administration; with only three items performance - proposing it as a metric of the cognitive miserliness central to dual process theories of thinking. This and no requirement for expensive equipment, the practical thesis was examined using reasoning response-times, advantages are considerable. There have, moreover, been normative responses from two reasoning tasks and working numerous correlates of the CRT demonstrated, from a wide memory capacity (WMC) to predict individual differences in range of tasks in the heuristics and biases literature (Toplak performance on the CRT. These data offered limited support et al., 2011) to risk aversion and SAT scores (Frederick, for the view of miserliness as the primary factor in the CRT.
  • 3. Studies of Colorectal Cancer Screening

    3. Studies of Colorectal Cancer Screening

    IARC HANDBOOKS COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING VOLUME 17 This publication represents the views and expert opinions of an IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Cancer-Preventive Strategies, which met in Lyon, 14–21 November 2017 LYON, FRANCE - 2019 IARC HANDBOOKS OF CANCER PREVENTION 3. STUDIES OF COLORECTAL CANCER SCREENING 3.1 Methodological considerations end-point of the RCT can be the incidence of the cancer of interest. Methods for colorectal cancer (CRC) screen- The observed effect of screening in RCTs is ing include endoscopic methods and stool-based dependent on, among other things, the partic- tests for blood. The two primary end-points for ipation in the intervention group and the limi- endoscopic CRC screening are (i) finding cancer tation of contamination of the control group. at an early stage (secondary prevention) and Low participation biases the estimate of effect (ii) finding and removing precancerous lesions towards its no-effect value, and therefore it must (adenomatous polyps), to reduce the incidence be evaluated and reported. Screening of controls of CRC (primary prevention). The primary by services outside of the RCT also dilutes the end-point for stool-based tests is finding cancer effect of screening on CRC incidence and/or at an early stage. Stool-based tests also have some mortality. If the screening modality being eval- ability to detect adenomatous polyps; therefore, a uated is widely used in clinical practice in secondary end-point of these tests is reducing the the region or regions where the RCT is being incidence of CRC. conducted, then contamination may be consid- erable, although it may be difficult and/or costly 3.1.1 Randomized controlled trials of to estimate its extent.
  • Prior Belief Innuences on Reasoning and Judgment: a Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias

    Prior Belief Innuences on Reasoning and Judgment: a Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias

    Prior Belief Innuences on Reasoning and Judgment: A Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias Walter Cabral Sa A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Education University of Toronto O Copyright by Walter C.Si5 1999 National Library Bibliothèque nationaIe of Canada du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue WePington Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON KtA ON4 Canada Canada Your file Votre rëfërence Our fi& Notre réterence The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive Licence allowing the exclusive permettant à la National Libraq of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or sell reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microforni, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor subçtantial extracts fi-om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or otherwise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. Prior Belief Influences on Reasoning and Judgment: A Multivariate Investigation of Individual Differences in Belief Bias Doctor of Philosophy, 1999 Walter Cabral Sa Graduate Department of Education University of Toronto Belief bias occurs when reasoning or judgments are found to be overly infiuenced by prior belief at the expense of a normatively prescribed accommodation of dl the relevant data.
  • Thinking and Reasoning

    Thinking and Reasoning

    Thinking and Reasoning Thinking and Reasoning ■ An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making Ken Manktelow First published 2012 British Library Cataloguing in Publication by Psychology Press Data 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex BN3 2FA A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication by Psychology Press Data 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Manktelow, K. I., 1952– Thinking and reasoning : an introduction [www.psypress.com] to the psychology of reason, Psychology Press is an imprint of the Taylor & judgment and decision making / Ken Francis Group, an informa business Manktelow. p. cm. © 2012 Psychology Press Includes bibliographical references and Typeset in Century Old Style and Futura by index. Refi neCatch Ltd, Bungay, Suffolk 1. Reasoning (Psychology) Cover design by Andrew Ward 2. Thought and thinking. 3. Cognition. 4. Decision making. All rights reserved. No part of this book may I. Title. be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any BF442.M354 2012 form or by any electronic, mechanical, or 153.4'2--dc23 other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and 2011031284 recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing ISBN: 978-1-84169-740-6 (hbk) from the publishers. ISBN: 978-1-84169-741-3 (pbk) Trademark notice : Product or corporate ISBN: 978-0-203-11546-6 (ebk) names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
  • Fixing Biases: Principles of Cognitive De-Biasing

    Fixing Biases: Principles of Cognitive De-Biasing

    Fixing biases: Principles of cognitive de-biasing Pat Croskerry MD, PhD Clinical Reasoning in Medical Education National Science Learning Centre, University of York Workshop, November 26, 2019 Case q A 65 year old female presents to the ED with a complaint of shoulder sprain. She said she was gardening this morning and injured her shoulder pushing her lawn mower. q At triage she has normal vital signs and in no distress. The triage nurse notes her complaint and triages her to the fast track area. q She is seen by an emergency physician who notes her complaint and examines her shoulder. He orders an X-ray. q The shoulder X ray shows narrowing of the joint and signs of osteoarthrtritis q He discharges her with a sling and Rx for Arthrotec q She is brought to the ED 4 hours later following an episode of syncope, sweating, and weakness. She is diagnosed with an inferior MI. Biases q A 65 year old female presents to the ED with a complaint of ‘shoulder sprain’. She said she was gardening this morning and sprained her shoulder pushing her lawn mower (Framing). q At triage she has normal vital signs and in no distress. The triage nurse notes her complaint and triages her to the fast track area (Triage cueing). q She is seen by an emergency physician who notes her complaint and examines her shoulder. He orders an X-ray (Ascertainment bias). q The shoulder X ray shows narrowing of the joint and signs of osteoarthrtritis. He explains to the patient the cause of her pain (Confirmation bias).
  • BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available

    BMJ Open Is Committed to Open Peer Review. As Part of This Commitment We Make the Peer Review History of Every Article We Publish Publicly Available

    BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035678 on 31 October 2020. Downloaded from BMJ Open is committed to open peer review. As part of this commitment we make the peer review history of every article we publish publicly available. When an article is published we post the peer reviewers’ comments and the authors’ responses online. We also post the versions of the paper that were used during peer review. These are the versions that the peer review comments apply to. The versions of the paper that follow are the versions that were submitted during the peer review process. They are not the versions of record or the final published versions. They should not be cited or distributed as the published version of this manuscript. BMJ Open is an open access journal and the full, final, typeset and author-corrected version of record of the manuscript is available on our site with no access controls, subscription charges or pay-per-view fees (http://bmjopen.bmj.com). If you have any questions on BMJ Open’s open peer review process please email [email protected] http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ on September 28, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. BMJ Open BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035678 on 31 October 2020. Downloaded from Primary care practitioner diagnostic action when the patient may have cancer: a vignette survey in 20 European countries ForJournal: peerBMJ Open review only Manuscript ID bmjopen-2019-035678 Article Type: Original research Date Submitted by the 20-Nov-2019 Author: Complete List of Authors: Harris, Michael;
  • Bias and Confounding • Describe the Key Types of Bias

    Bias and Confounding • Describe the Key Types of Bias

    M1 - PopMed OBJECTIVES Bias and Confounding • Describe the key types of bias • Identify sources of bias in study design, data collection and analysis Saba Masho, MD, MPH, DrPH Department of Epidemiology and Community Health • Identify confounders and methods for [email protected] controlling confounders 1 2 Bias Types: • Bias is any systematic error in an epidemiologic study that results in an 1. Selection incorrect estimate of association between risk factor and outcome. 2. Information/measurement • It is introduced in the design of the study including, data collection, analysis, 3. Confounding interpretation, publication or review of data. • It is impossible to correct for bias during the analysis and may also be hard to evaluate. Thus, studies need to be carefully designed. 3 4 SELECTION BIAS SELECTION BIAS • A systematic error that arises in the process of selecting the study populations • May also occur when membership in one group differs systematically from the general population or • May occur when different criteria is used to select control group, called membership bias cases/controls or exposed/non exposed – E.g. selecting cases from inner hospitals and controls from – E.g. A study in uterine cancer excluding patients with sub-urban hospitals hysterectomy from cases but not from control • The differences in hospital admission between cases • Detection bias: occurs when the risk factor under and controls may conceal an association in a study, investigation requires thorough diagnostic this is called “Berkson’s bias” or “admission
  • Diagnostic Downshift’: Clinical and System Consequences of Extrapolating Secondary Care Testing Tactics to Primary Care

    Diagnostic Downshift’: Clinical and System Consequences of Extrapolating Secondary Care Testing Tactics to Primary Care

    EBM analysis BMJ EBM: first published as 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111629 on 7 June 2021. Downloaded from ‘Diagnostic downshift’: clinical and system consequences of extrapolating secondary care testing tactics to primary care Imran Mohammed Sajid ,1,2 Kathleen Frost,3 Ash K Paul4 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111629 ABSTRACT Several drivers push specialist diagnostic Numerous drivers push specialist diagnostic approaches down to the broader primary care layer of a health system, which we describe as ‘diag- 1NHS West London Clinical approaches down to primary care (‘diagnostic Commissioning Group, downshift’), intuitively welcomed by clinicians nostic downshift’. Aspirations for earlier disease London, UK and patients. However, primary care’s different detection or capacity pressures in specialist and 2University of Global Health population and processes result in under- cancer pathways underlie shifting of tests from Equity, Kigali, Rwanda recognised, unintended consequences. Testing high- cost hospital settings to primary care. Such 3 NHS Central London Clinical performs poorer in primary care, with indication assumptions have led to procurement and growth Commissioning Group, creep due to earlier, more undifferentiated of GP diagnostics, with unfettered direct access to London, UK presentation and reduced accuracy due to physiology tests, endoscopy, ultrasound, MRI, CT, 4NHS South West London spectrum bias and the ‘false-positive paradox’. and biochemical and immunological tests, often Health and Care Partnership only evaluated in secondary care. It is increasingly STP, London, UK In low- prevalence settings, tests without near- 100% specificity have their useful yield eclipsed expected, sometimes mandated, for GPs to perform by greater incidental or false- positive findings. secondary care- based testing strategies prior to Correspondence to: Ensuing cascades and multiplier effects can referral.
  • Education, Faculty of Medicine, Thinking and Decision Making

    Education, Faculty of Medicine, Thinking and Decision Making

    J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2011; 41:155–62 Symposium review doi:10.4997/JRCPE.2011.208 © 2011 Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh Better clinical decision making and reducing diagnostic error P Croskerry, GR Nimmo 1Clinical Consultant in Patient Safety and Professor in Emergency Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 2Consultant Physician in Intensive Care Medicine, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK This review is based on a presentation given by Dr Nimmo and Professor Croskerry Correspondence to P Croskerry, at the RCPE Patient Safety Hot Topic Symposium on 19 January 2011. Department of Emergency Medicine and Division of Medical ABSTRACT A major amount of our time working in clinical practice involves Education, Faculty of Medicine, thinking and decision making. Perhaps it is because decision making is such a Dalhousie University, QE II – commonplace activity that it is assumed we can all make effective decisions. Health Sciences Centre, Halifax Infirmary, Suite 355, 1796 Summer However, this is not the case and the example of diagnostic error supports this Street, Halifax, Nova Scotia B3H assertion. Until quite recently there has been a general nihilism about the ability 2Y9, Canada to change the way that we think, but it is now becoming accepted that if we can think about, and understand, our thinking processes we can improve our decision tel. +1 902 225 0360 making, including diagnosis. In this paper we review the dual process model of e-mail [email protected] decision making and highlight ways in which decision making can be improved through the application of this model to our day-to-day practice and by the adoption of de-biasing strategies and critical thinking.
  • Improving Lung Cancer Survival Time to Move On

    Improving Lung Cancer Survival Time to Move On

    . Heuvers E arlies arlies M Time to move on NG LUNG CANCER CANCER LUNG NG I VAL I IMPROV SURV Marlies E. Heuvers IMPROVING LUNG CANCER SURVIVAL Time to move on Improving lung cancer survival; Time to move on Marlies E. Heuvers ISBN: 978-94-6169-388-4 Improving lung cancer survival; time to move on Thesis, Erasmus University Copyright © M.E. Heuvers All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system of any nature, or transmitted in any form or by any means without permission of the author. Cover design: Lay-out and printing: Optima Grafische Communicatie, Rotterdam, The Netherlands Printing of this thesis was kindly supported by the the Department of Respiratory Medicine, GlaxoSmithKline, J.E. Jurriaanse Stichting, Boehringer Ingelheim bv, Roche, TEVA, Chiesi, Pfizer, Doppio Rotterdam. Improving Lung Cancer Survival; Time to move on Verbetering van de overleving van longkanker; tijd om verder te gaan Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam op gezag van de rector magnificus Prof. dr. H.G. Schmidt en volgens besluit van het College van Promoties. De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op 11 juni 2013 om 13.30 uur door Marlies Esther Heuvers geboren te Hoorn Promotiecommissie Promotor: Prof. dr. H.C. Hoogsteden Copromotoren: dr. J.G.J.V. Aerts dr. J.P.J.J. Hegmans Overige leden: Prof. dr. R.W. Hendriks Prof. dr. B.H.Ch. Stricker Prof. dr. S. Sleijfer Ingenuas didicisse fideliter artes emollit mores, nec sinit esse feros. Ovidius, Epistulae ex Ponto
  • Screening for Disease Stanley H

    Screening for Disease Stanley H

    Screening for Disease Stanley H. Weiss, MD, FACP, FACE Professor of Medicine at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Professor of Epidemiology at Rutgers School of Public Health PI & Director, Essex-Passaic Wellness Coalition Immediate Past Chair, International Joint Policy Committee of the Societies of Epidemiology Cancer Liaison Physician and Oncology Committee Vice-chair, University Hospital, Newark, NJ Executive Board, New Jersey Public Health Association Due Diligence In medicine as in life, it is essential to critically assess what you are told. Statements that on their face may seem reasonable, and indeed even may be true, can be misleading… Those who know me, are well aware that I am quite allergic to furry animals. This led to a problem with having pets in our home, despite my wife and children being animal lovers. As a child, my daughter was very much in love with the following wonderful and adorable creature, to which I have never demonstrated any allergic reaction… So, let me re-state this quite plainly: (Image of unicorns A live unicorn has deleted due to never led me to copyright.) sneeze. I think we can all concur on the (likely) truth of this statement. Why not just test/screen everyone for everything? 1. The test must provide useful information, that is actionable. 2. Harm may be caused, not just benefit. 3. There are costs, even for something that appears trivial. 4. Society makes decisions on resource allocation. 5. Individuals may have different preferences, and come to different conclusions – esp. wrt what is worthwhile for them (such as when they must pay out-of-pocket for non-covered tests).