Diagnostic shades of grey

How many patients (and doctors) are unaware of the range of variability in diagnoses that can derive from the same pathology sample? How much accepted ‘certainty’ is, in fact, ‘uncertain’? Read on, and you may never want to accept a diagnosis without getting a second opinion – or a third.

When Diagnostic Uncertainty Hits Home. Joann Elmore. BMJ Opinion, 28 June 2017.

http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/06/28/joann-elmore-when-diagnostic-uncertainty-hits-home/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+bmj%2Fblogs+%28Latest+BMJ+blogs%29&g=w_bmj-com

The article includes some useful links eg http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199412013312206

‘Variability in Radiologists’ Interpretations of Mammograms. Joann G. Elmore, Carolyn K. Wells, Carol H. Lee, Debra H. Howard, and Alvan R. Feinstein

N Engl J Med 1994; 331:1493-1499 December 1, 1994 – which calls for efforts to improve accuracy and reduce variability in interpretations of mammography.

Advertisements

About bmitzi

Medical writer, author, artist. Cancer campaigner. Aiming always to improve health services and bring compassion into health care.
This entry was posted in biopsies, Breast Cancer, breast screening, Campaigns, cancer, citizen safety, diagnoses, harms, healthcare modernisation, information, medicine's flaws, Over-medicalisation, overdiagnosis, patient safety, patient/doctor communication, Public safety, Screening, Screening Mammography and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s