Abstract
Uncertainty is involved in each and every step of the diagnostic process. Trying to eliminate doubt altogether is too costly, is likely to fail, and may lead to patient harm. Acknowledging this, the threshold approach aims to optimize diagnosis-making by adopting the explicit use of probability estimates and by discouraging the pursuit of 100% certainty. Yet physicians are affected by cognitive biases which compromise their probabilistic reasoning and may lead to unreliable estimates. Health informatics tools helping to overcome human limitations by empowering physicians to handle probabilities are needed to increase the efficiency of diagnostic process.
Author contributions:The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of the submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in thestudy design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretationof data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision tosubmit the report for publication.
References
1. Del Mar C, Doust J, Glasziou P. Clinical thinking. Evidence, communication and decision-making. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2006.10.1002/9780470750568Search in Google Scholar
2. Kahneman D, Klein G. Conditions for intuitive expertise: a failure to disagree. Am Psychol 2009;64:515–26.10.1037/a0016755Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Statistics | Tularemia | CDC [Internet]. [cited 2016 May 12]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/tularemia/statistics/index.html.Search in Google Scholar
4. Current Trends Update: Serologic Testing for Antibody to Human Immunodeficiency Virus [Internet]. [cited 2016 May 18]. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00051681.htm.Search in Google Scholar
5. HIV testing example of Bayes’ rule [Internet]. [cited 2016 May 12]. Available at: http://www4.stat.ncsu.edu/~reich/st590/code/HIV.Search in Google Scholar
6. Qaseem A, Alguire P, Dallas P, Feinberg LE, Fitzgerald FT, Horwitch C, et al. Appropriate use of screening and diagnostic tests to foster high-value, cost-conscious care. Ann Intern Med 2012;156:147–9.10.7326/0003-4819-156-2-201201170-00011Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Pauker SG, Kassirer JP. The threshold approach to clinical decision making. N Engl J Med 1980;302:1109–17.10.1056/NEJM198005153022003Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Radack KL, Rouan G, Hedges J. The likelihood ratio. An improved measure for reporting and evaluating diagnostic test results. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1986;110:689–93.Search in Google Scholar
9. McGee S. Evidence-based physical diagnosis, 3rd ed. Phiadelphia, PA: Elsevier Saunders, 2012.10.1016/B978-1-4377-2207-9.00001-XSearch in Google Scholar
10. Halkin A, Reichman J, Schwaber M, Paltiel O, Brezis M. Likelihood ratios: getting diagnostic testing into perspective. Q J Med Mon J Assoc Physicians 1998;91:247–58.10.1093/qjmed/91.4.247Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Dolan JG, Bordley DR, Mushlin AI. An evaluation of clinicians’ subjective prior probability estimates. Med Decis Making 1986;6:216–23.10.1177/0272989X8600600406Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Phelps MA, Levitt MA. Pretest probability estimates: a pitfall to the clinical utility of evidence-based medicine? Acad Emerg Med 2004;11:692–4.10.1111/j.1553-2712.2004.tb02416.xSearch in Google Scholar
13. Tversky A, Koehler DJ. Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability. Psychol Rev 1994;101:547–67.10.1017/CBO9780511808098.027Search in Google Scholar
14. Redelmeier DA, Koehler DJ, Liberman V, Tversky A. Probability judgement in medicine: discounting unspecified possibilities. Med Decis Making 1995;15:227–30.10.1177/0272989X9501500305Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Cahan A, Gilon D, Manor O, Paltiel O. Probabilistic reasoning and clinical decision-making: do doctors overestimate diagnostic probabilities? QJM Mon J Assoc Physicians 2003;96:763–9.10.1093/qjmed/hcg122Search in Google Scholar PubMed
16. McDonald CJ. Medical heuristics: the silent adjudicators of clinical practice. Ann Intern Med 1996;124(1 Pt 1):56–62.10.7326/0003-4819-124-1_Part_1-199601010-00009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Klein JG. Five pitfalls in decisions about diagnosis and prescribing. Br Med J 2005;330:781–3.10.1136/bmj.330.7494.781Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Chen R, Snyder M. Promise of personalized omics to precision medicine. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Syst Biol Med 2013;5:73–82.10.1002/wsbm.1198Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
