Literature DB >> 17057798

Unnecessary clinical tests in ophthalmology.

James J Augsburger1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To define and discuss unnecessary clinical tests in ophthalmology, review the justifications commonly given by clinicians for obtaining unnecessary clinical tests, and suggest a more rational approach to clinical testing in the future.
METHODS: The author defines an unnecessary clinical test as a test on a human subject that is unlikely to influence that patient's diagnosis, prognosis, or management or is performed exclusively, primarily, or in large part for research purposes.
RESULTS: Examples of clinical tests the author categorizes as unnecessary are tests performed to evaluate a new or nonstandard diagnostic instrument or method; tests performed to evaluate sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of a new instrument or method; tests obtained to provide images or data for future analysis, presentation, or publication; tests obtained routinely in patients of a certain class or category without regard to the individual's personal characteristics, recent clinical history, or clinical signs; and duplicate tests performed without retrieval and review of recent prior tests of the same types and determination of the quality of and findings revealed by those tests. Several justifications that are commonly given by clinicians for their ordering of unnecessary tests are presented, and each of these justifications is critiqued. The principal problems with unnecessary testing are increased costs of medical care, worsening rather than improvement in patient outcomes, and unethical practice.
CONCLUSION: Unnecessary testing is perhaps an unavoidable aspect of current clinical ophthalmic practice in the United States. In spite of this, clinicians (especially academic ophthalmologists) need to be aware of this issue and take appropriate steps to minimize such testing.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 17057798      PMCID: PMC1447569     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc        ISSN: 0065-9533


  20 in total

Review 1.  Testing for uncommon conditions. The heroic search for positive test results.

Authors:  S H Woolf; D B Kamerow
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1990-12

2.  Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: how might more be worse?

Authors:  E S Fisher; H G Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-02-03       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Clinical decision analysis. The hazard of using additional data.

Authors:  J C Sisson; E B Schoomaker; J C Ross
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1976-09-13       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Probability theory in the use of diagnostic tests. An introduction to critical study of the literature.

Authors:  H C Sox
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1986-01       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 5.  Cascade effects of medical technology.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo
Journal:  Annu Rev Public Health       Date:  2001-10-25       Impact factor: 21.981

6.  What kind of basic science for clinical medicine?

Authors:  A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1970-10-15       Impact factor: 91.245

7.  Physicians' misunderstanding of normal findings.

Authors:  J J Christensen-Szalanski; J B Bushyhead
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1983       Impact factor: 2.583

8.  Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests.

Authors:  D F Ransohoff; A R Feinstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1978-10-26       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  The utility of routine screening of patients with uveitis for systemic lupus erythematosus or tuberculosis. A Bayesian analysis.

Authors:  J T Rosenbaum; R Wernick
Journal:  Arch Ophthalmol       Date:  1990-09

10.  Physician tolerance for uncertainty. Use of liver-spleen scans to detect metastases.

Authors:  R M Allman; E P Steinberg; J C Keruly; P E Dans
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1985-07-12       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  1 in total

1.  Patterns of Laboratory Testing Utilization Among Uveitis Specialists.

Authors:  Cecilia S Lee; Sandeep Randhawa; Aaron Y Lee; Deborah L Lam; Russell N Van Gelder
Journal:  Am J Ophthalmol       Date:  2016-08-10       Impact factor: 5.258

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.