Literature DB >> 11910053

Cascade effects of medical technology.

Richard A Deyo1.   

Abstract

Cascade effect refers to a process that proceeds in stepwise fashion from an initiating event to a seemingly inevitable conclusion. With regard to medical technology, the term refers to a chain of events initiated by an unnecessary test, an unexpected result, or patient or physician anxiety, which results in ill-advised tests or treatments that may cause avoidable adverse effects and/or morbidity. Examples include discovery of endocrine incidentalomas on head and body scans; irrelevant abnormalities on spinal imaging; tampering with random fluctuations in clinical measures; and unwanted aggressive care at the end of life. Common triggers include failing to understand the likelihood of false-positive results; errors in data interpretation; overestimating benefits or underestimating risks; and low tolerance of ambiguity. Excess capacity and perverse financial incentives may contribute to cascade effects as well. Preventing cascade effects may require better education of physicians and patients; research on the natural history of mild diagnostic abnormalities; achieving optimal capacity in health care systems; and awareness that more is not the same as better.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11910053     DOI: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.092101.134534

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health        ISSN: 0163-7525            Impact factor:   21.981


  69 in total

1.  The predictive value of cancer symptoms in primary care.

Authors:  Kevin Barraclough
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2010-09       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 2.  Incidental findings in imaging diagnostic tests: a systematic review.

Authors:  B Lumbreras; L Donat; I Hernández-Aguado
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.039

3.  Health system implications of direct-to-consumer personal genome testing.

Authors:  Amy L McGuire; Wylie Burke
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2010-11-13       Impact factor: 2.000

4.  Risky business: risk perception and the use of medical services among customers of DTC personal genetic testing.

Authors:  David J Kaufman; Juli M Bollinger; Rachel L Dvoskin; Joan A Scott
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2012-01-26       Impact factor: 2.537

Review 5.  Normalizing physiological variables in acute illness: five reasons for caution.

Authors:  Brian P Kavanagh; L Joanne Meyer
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2005-07-26       Impact factor: 17.440

6.  Health technology assessment (HTA) in cardiac field.

Authors:  Mahmoud Elbarbary
Journal:  J Saudi Heart Assoc       Date:  2010-03-01

7.  Cancer incidence in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia.

Authors:  Christine W Duarte; Adam W Black; F Lee Lucas; Calvin P H Vary
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2016-09-16       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 8.  Personalized genomic information: preparing for the future of genetic medicine.

Authors:  Alan E Guttmacher; Amy L McGuire; Bruce Ponder; Kári Stefánsson
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2010-01-12       Impact factor: 53.242

9.  "Chasing a Ghost": Factors that Influence Primary Care Physicians to Follow Up on Incidental Imaging Findings.

Authors:  Hanna M Zafar; Eva K Bugos; Curtis P Langlotz; Rosemary Frasso
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2016-05-17       Impact factor: 11.105

10.  Pretest expectations strongly influence interpretation of abnormal laboratory results and further management.

Authors:  Paul H H Houben; Trudy van der Weijden; Bjorn Winkens; Ron A G Winkens; Richard P T M Grol
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2010-02-16       Impact factor: 2.497

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.