Literature DB >> 20182138

Perspective: Uses and misuses of thresholds in diagnostic decision making.

Jeremy L Warner1, Robert M Najarian, Lawrence M Tierney.   

Abstract

The concept of thresholds plays a vital role in decisions involving the initiation, continuation, and completion of diagnostic testing. Much research has focused on the development of explicit thresholds, in the form of practice guidelines and decision analyses. However, these tools are used infrequently; most medical decisions are made at the bedside, using implicit thresholds. Study of these thresholds can lead to a deeper understanding of clinical decision making. The authors examine some factors constituting individual clinicians' implicit thresholds. They propose a model for static thresholds using the concept of situational gravity to explain why some thresholds are high, and some low. Next, they consider the hypothetical effects of incorrect placement of thresholds (miscalibration) and changes to thresholds during diagnosis (manipulation). They demonstrate these concepts using common clinical scenarios. Through analysis of miscalibration of thresholds, the authors demonstrate some common maladaptive clinical behaviors, which are nevertheless internally consistent. They then explain how manipulation of thresholds gives rise to common cognitive heuristics including premature closure and anchoring. They also discuss the case where no threshold has been exceeded despite exhaustive collection of data, which commonly leads to application of the availability or representativeness heuristics. Awareness of implicit thresholds allows for a more effective understanding of the processes of medical decision making and, possibly, to the avoidance of detrimental heuristics and their associated medical errors. Research toward accurately defining these thresholds for individual physicians and toward determining their dynamic properties during the diagnostic process may yield valuable insights.

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20182138     DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181ccd59b

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  3 in total

1.  Physician Bayesian updating from personal beliefs about the base rate and likelihood ratio.

Authors:  Benjamin Margolin Rottman
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2017-02

2.  Socioeconomic disparity in inpatient mortality after traumatic injury in adults.

Authors:  Mays T Ali; Xuan Hui; Zain G Hashmi; Nitasha Dhiman; Valerie K Scott; David T Efron; Eric B Schneider; Adil H Haider
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.982

3.  How much diagnostic safety can we afford, and how should we decide? A health economics perspective.

Authors:  David E Newman-Toker; Kathryn M McDonald; David O Meltzer
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 7.035

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.