Literature DB >> 20151206

Too much of a good thing is wonderful? A conceptual analysis of excessive examinations and diagnostic futility in diagnostic radiology.

Bjørn Hofmann1.   

Abstract

It has been argued extensively that diagnostic services are a general good, but that it is offered in excess. So what is the problem? Is not "too much of a good thing wonderful", to paraphrase Mae West? This article explores such a possibility in the field of radiological services where it is argued that more than 40% of the examinations are excessive. The question of whether radiological examinations are excessive cries for a definition of diagnostic futility. However, no such definition is found in the literature. As a response, this article addresses the issue of diagnostic futility in five steps. First, it investigates whether the concept of therapeutic futility can be adapted to diagnostics. A closer analysis of the concept of therapeutic futility reveals that this will not do the trick. Second, the article scrutinizes whether there are sources for clarifying diagnostic futility in the extensive debate on excessive radiological examination. Investigating the debate's terms and definitions reveals a disparate terminology and no clear concepts. On the contrary, the study uncovers that quite different and incompatible issues are at stake. Third, the article examines a procedural approach, which is widely used for settling controversies over utility by focusing on the role of the professionals. On scrutiny however, a procedural approach will not solve the problem in diagnostics. Fourth, a value analysis reveals how we have to decide on the negative value of excessive examinations before we can measure excess. The final and constructive part presents a definition of diagnostic futility drawing upon the lessons from the previous analytical steps. Altogether, too much radiological examination is not a good thing. This is simply because radiological examinations are not unanimously good. Excessive radiological examinations can be defined, but not by one simple general and value-neutral definition. We have to settle with contextually framed value-related definitions. Such definitions will state how bad "too much of a good thing" is and make it possible to assess how much of the bad thing there is. Hence we have to know how bad it is before we can tell how much of it there is in the world.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20151206     DOI: 10.1007/s11019-010-9233-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Health Care Philos        ISSN: 1386-7423


  68 in total

1.  Assessment of radiological referral practice and effect of computer-based guidelines on radiological requests in two emergency departments.

Authors:  Matthieu Carton; Bertran Auvert; Henri Guerini; Jean-Christophe Boulard; Jean-Francois Heautot; Marie-France Landre; Alain Beauchet; Marc Sznajderi; Dominique Brun-Ney; Sophie Chagnon
Journal:  Clin Radiol       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.350

2.  The evolution of the system of radiological protection: the justification for new ICRP recommendations.

Authors: 
Journal:  J Radiol Prot       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 1.394

3.  Why address medical futility now? New guidelines aim to resolve the inevitable differences of opinion that occur when health care providers or family members deem that further medical care is futile.

Authors:  Gay Moldow; Dianne Bartels; Don Brunnquell; Ron Cranford
Journal:  Minn Med       Date:  2004-06

4.  Inpatient radiology utilization: trends over the past decade.

Authors:  Amin Matin; David W Bates; Andrew Sussman; Pablo Ros; Richard Hanson; Ramin Khorasani
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.959

5.  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

6.  Unnecessary (?) x-ray studies.

Authors:  P Rosen
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  1985       Impact factor: 1.484

7.  Impact of underuse, overuse, and discretionary use on geographic variation in the use of coronary angiography after acute myocardial infarction.

Authors:  E Guadagnoli; M B Landrum; S L Normand; J Z Ayanian; P Garg; P J Hauptman; T J Ryan; B J McNeil
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Setting appropriateness guidelines for radiology.

Authors:  P N Cascade
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 11.105

9.  Analysis of radiological examination request forms in conjunction with justification of X-ray exposures.

Authors:  Ch Triantopoulou; I Tsalafoutas; P Maniatis; D Papavdis; G Raios; I Siafas; S Velonakis; E Koulentianos
Journal:  Eur J Radiol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.528

10.  Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture. Clinical efficacy of diagnostic imaging: love it or leave it.

Authors:  J R Thornbury
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  5 in total

1.  The justification of non-obstetric ultrasound referrals: A safe and effective practice.

Authors:  Shaunna Smith; Trevor Parker; Pamela Parker
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2021-04-24

2.  Trends in ultrasound examination in family practice.

Authors:  Ali F Alamri; Israr Khan; Mirza I A Baig; Rahila Iftikhar
Journal:  J Family Community Med       Date:  2014-05

3.  Consensus Procedures in Oncological Imaging: The Case of Prostate Cancer.

Authors:  Stefano Fanti; Wim Oyen; Elisabetta Lalumera
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 6.639

4.  Image rejects in general direct digital radiography.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann; Tine Blomberg Rosanowsky; Camilla Jensen; Kenneth Hong Ching Wah
Journal:  Acta Radiol Open       Date:  2015-10-08

5.  Visualizing the Invisible: Invisible Waste in Diagnostic Imaging.

Authors:  Bjørn Hofmann; Eivind Richter Andersen; Elin Kjelle
Journal:  Healthcare (Basel)       Date:  2021-12-07
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.