bozhoff:医学诊断:证据的

IF 1.5 Q2 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
S. Harendza
{"title":"bozhoff:医学诊断:证据的","authors":"S. Harendza","doi":"10.3205/zma001596","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The most important statement of this book right at the beginning: “Diagnoses are not found, they are made”. This is likely to come as a bit of a shock to anyone who has enjoyed watching Dr. House or is looking forward to a new episode of Adventure Diagnosis in the media library. However, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff manages the miracle of covering the entire spectrum of medical thought and action, including cognitive psychology and medical history perspectives, in order to explain this statement without once using the term clinical reasoning. Never before have I enjoyed reading about strategies for prevalence enrichment or regression to the mean so much, not tomention the excellent explanations and illustrations of the four-field table, where, after reading it, really no one can claim not to have understood it. And: the fact that tests only modify disease probabilities according to Bayes’ theoremand that the pre-test probability is decisive for this cannot be read often enough – so here also. For this is often forgotten in everyday clinical practice, as the author explains with striking and also somewhat frightening examples. Complete certainty can thus not be achieved in the always tricky contexts of diagnosing. Perhaps it would have been even more useful at these points for a better understanding of this fact not to speak of a disease being “ruled out” but rather of it being made “less likely” by a test. But this is whining on a high level. This book is not just a guide to making a medical diagnosis, it is much more than that. It offers insight into the daily work of physicians in the trickiest task and the greatest professional challenge: making (i.e., “making”) a diagnosis. In doing so, it is devoted to historical perspectives and scientific traditions of different countries that approach the diagnostic process in different ways. This offers an excellent opportunity to reflect on one's own medical work – and teaching – and to open up to sometimes painful insights. The author discusses how reference ranges come about and that biological fluctuations are the greatest source of uncertainty, as well as the overestimation of technical findings in everyday medical practice and the harmful consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Theoretical, partly philosophical passages explaining important background information on the status quo of medical diagnosis with its problematic consequences (“X-rays and injections are powerful rituals”) alternate with current practical references. These are strikingly accessible to those working in the medical field, students and teachers, and offer good starting points for reflecting on one’s own actions. It is very pleasant to note that, with very few exceptions, English terms have been translated into German. The chosen form of gendering – the female form is used everywhere, except when exclusively men are meant – keeps the text pleasantly readable, even if this principle weakens somewhat in some places toward the end. Each chapter ends with a focused outlook that conclusively brings what has been read to the point and offers a good summary of the essential aspects in each case. Despite its broad scientific basis, the book reads almost like a novel or detective story, because the flow of reading is not disturbed by footnotes. An overview of the underlying literature can be found at the end of the chapters and, to an even greater extent, in annotated digital supplementary material that can be downloaded from a website. The professional primary socialization is based on scientific knowledge (“disease”), whereas in daily work with patients each person represents an individual case (“illness”). From my point of view, this is the most important insight in diagnosing pointed out by Norbert DonnerBanzhoff. Each patientmust be “understood” individually in order to “make” a diagnosis. This is also seen as the greatest challenge for medical teaching, which has so far paid little attention to this aspect. The complexity of","PeriodicalId":45850,"journal":{"name":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Norbert Donner-Banzhoff: Die ärztliche Diagnose: Erfahrung – Evidenz – Ritual\",\"authors\":\"S. Harendza\",\"doi\":\"10.3205/zma001596\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The most important statement of this book right at the beginning: “Diagnoses are not found, they are made”. This is likely to come as a bit of a shock to anyone who has enjoyed watching Dr. House or is looking forward to a new episode of Adventure Diagnosis in the media library. However, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff manages the miracle of covering the entire spectrum of medical thought and action, including cognitive psychology and medical history perspectives, in order to explain this statement without once using the term clinical reasoning. Never before have I enjoyed reading about strategies for prevalence enrichment or regression to the mean so much, not tomention the excellent explanations and illustrations of the four-field table, where, after reading it, really no one can claim not to have understood it. And: the fact that tests only modify disease probabilities according to Bayes’ theoremand that the pre-test probability is decisive for this cannot be read often enough – so here also. For this is often forgotten in everyday clinical practice, as the author explains with striking and also somewhat frightening examples. Complete certainty can thus not be achieved in the always tricky contexts of diagnosing. Perhaps it would have been even more useful at these points for a better understanding of this fact not to speak of a disease being “ruled out” but rather of it being made “less likely” by a test. But this is whining on a high level. This book is not just a guide to making a medical diagnosis, it is much more than that. It offers insight into the daily work of physicians in the trickiest task and the greatest professional challenge: making (i.e., “making”) a diagnosis. In doing so, it is devoted to historical perspectives and scientific traditions of different countries that approach the diagnostic process in different ways. This offers an excellent opportunity to reflect on one's own medical work – and teaching – and to open up to sometimes painful insights. The author discusses how reference ranges come about and that biological fluctuations are the greatest source of uncertainty, as well as the overestimation of technical findings in everyday medical practice and the harmful consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Theoretical, partly philosophical passages explaining important background information on the status quo of medical diagnosis with its problematic consequences (“X-rays and injections are powerful rituals”) alternate with current practical references. These are strikingly accessible to those working in the medical field, students and teachers, and offer good starting points for reflecting on one’s own actions. It is very pleasant to note that, with very few exceptions, English terms have been translated into German. The chosen form of gendering – the female form is used everywhere, except when exclusively men are meant – keeps the text pleasantly readable, even if this principle weakens somewhat in some places toward the end. Each chapter ends with a focused outlook that conclusively brings what has been read to the point and offers a good summary of the essential aspects in each case. Despite its broad scientific basis, the book reads almost like a novel or detective story, because the flow of reading is not disturbed by footnotes. An overview of the underlying literature can be found at the end of the chapters and, to an even greater extent, in annotated digital supplementary material that can be downloaded from a website. The professional primary socialization is based on scientific knowledge (“disease”), whereas in daily work with patients each person represents an individual case (“illness”). From my point of view, this is the most important insight in diagnosing pointed out by Norbert DonnerBanzhoff. Each patientmust be “understood” individually in order to “make” a diagnosis. This is also seen as the greatest challenge for medical teaching, which has so far paid little attention to this aspect. The complexity of\",\"PeriodicalId\":45850,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"GMS Journal for Medical Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001596\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"GMS Journal for Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3205/zma001596","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这本书最重要的一句话就在开头:“诊断不是发现的,而是做出来的”。这可能会让那些喜欢看豪斯医生或期待在媒体图书馆看到新一集冒险诊断的人感到有点震惊。然而,Norbert Donner-Banzhoff创造了奇迹,涵盖了整个医学思想和行动的范围,包括认知心理学和医疗史的观点,为了解释这个陈述,一次也没有使用临床推理这个术语。我以前从未如此喜欢阅读有关流行率富集或回归均值的策略,更不用说四字段表的出色解释和插图了,在读完它之后,真的没有人能声称自己不理解它。而且:根据贝叶斯定理,测试只修改疾病概率,即测试前概率是决定性的,这一事实不能经常读到——所以这里也是。因为在日常的临床实践中,这常常被遗忘,正如作者用惊人的,也有些可怕的例子来解释的那样。因此,在复杂的诊断环境中,不可能完全确定。也许在这一点上,更好地理解这一事实会更有用,不是说一种疾病被“排除”,而是通过测试使其“不太可能”。但这是高层次的抱怨。这本书不仅仅是一本医学诊断指南,它远不止于此。它提供了对医生日常工作中最棘手的任务和最大的专业挑战的见解:诊断(即“做出”)。在此过程中,它致力于以不同方式处理诊断过程的不同国家的历史观点和科学传统。这提供了一个极好的机会来反思自己的医疗工作和教学,并开放有时痛苦的见解。作者讨论了参考值范围是如何产生的,生物波动是不确定性的最大来源,以及在日常医疗实践中对技术结果的高估以及过度诊断和过度治疗的有害后果。解释医学诊断现状及其问题后果(“x光和注射是强有力的仪式”)的重要背景信息的理论性、部分哲学性段落与当前的实际参考文献交替出现。对于那些在医学领域工作的人,学生和老师来说,这些都是非常容易理解的,并且为反思自己的行为提供了很好的起点。非常高兴地注意到,除了极少数例外,英语术语已被翻译成德语。性别的选择形式——女性的形式在任何地方都被使用,除了专门指男性的时候——保持了文本的可读性,即使这个原则在接近结尾的一些地方有所减弱。每一章的结尾都有一个集中的观点,最终将所读到的内容带到了重点上,并对每个案例的基本方面进行了很好的总结。尽管有广泛的科学基础,这本书读起来几乎像一本小说或侦探小说,因为阅读的流程没有脚注的干扰。基础文献的概述可以在章节的末尾找到,甚至在更大程度上,可以从网站下载的注释数字补充材料。专业初级社会化以科学知识("疾病")为基础,而在与病人的日常工作中,每个人代表一个个案("疾病")。在我看来,这是诺伯特·唐纳·班佐夫在诊断中指出的最重要的见解。为了“做出”诊断,每个病人都必须单独“了解”。这也被视为医学教学面临的最大挑战,迄今为止,医学教学对这方面的关注很少。问题的复杂性
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Norbert Donner-Banzhoff: Die ärztliche Diagnose: Erfahrung – Evidenz – Ritual
The most important statement of this book right at the beginning: “Diagnoses are not found, they are made”. This is likely to come as a bit of a shock to anyone who has enjoyed watching Dr. House or is looking forward to a new episode of Adventure Diagnosis in the media library. However, Norbert Donner-Banzhoff manages the miracle of covering the entire spectrum of medical thought and action, including cognitive psychology and medical history perspectives, in order to explain this statement without once using the term clinical reasoning. Never before have I enjoyed reading about strategies for prevalence enrichment or regression to the mean so much, not tomention the excellent explanations and illustrations of the four-field table, where, after reading it, really no one can claim not to have understood it. And: the fact that tests only modify disease probabilities according to Bayes’ theoremand that the pre-test probability is decisive for this cannot be read often enough – so here also. For this is often forgotten in everyday clinical practice, as the author explains with striking and also somewhat frightening examples. Complete certainty can thus not be achieved in the always tricky contexts of diagnosing. Perhaps it would have been even more useful at these points for a better understanding of this fact not to speak of a disease being “ruled out” but rather of it being made “less likely” by a test. But this is whining on a high level. This book is not just a guide to making a medical diagnosis, it is much more than that. It offers insight into the daily work of physicians in the trickiest task and the greatest professional challenge: making (i.e., “making”) a diagnosis. In doing so, it is devoted to historical perspectives and scientific traditions of different countries that approach the diagnostic process in different ways. This offers an excellent opportunity to reflect on one's own medical work – and teaching – and to open up to sometimes painful insights. The author discusses how reference ranges come about and that biological fluctuations are the greatest source of uncertainty, as well as the overestimation of technical findings in everyday medical practice and the harmful consequences of overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Theoretical, partly philosophical passages explaining important background information on the status quo of medical diagnosis with its problematic consequences (“X-rays and injections are powerful rituals”) alternate with current practical references. These are strikingly accessible to those working in the medical field, students and teachers, and offer good starting points for reflecting on one’s own actions. It is very pleasant to note that, with very few exceptions, English terms have been translated into German. The chosen form of gendering – the female form is used everywhere, except when exclusively men are meant – keeps the text pleasantly readable, even if this principle weakens somewhat in some places toward the end. Each chapter ends with a focused outlook that conclusively brings what has been read to the point and offers a good summary of the essential aspects in each case. Despite its broad scientific basis, the book reads almost like a novel or detective story, because the flow of reading is not disturbed by footnotes. An overview of the underlying literature can be found at the end of the chapters and, to an even greater extent, in annotated digital supplementary material that can be downloaded from a website. The professional primary socialization is based on scientific knowledge (“disease”), whereas in daily work with patients each person represents an individual case (“illness”). From my point of view, this is the most important insight in diagnosing pointed out by Norbert DonnerBanzhoff. Each patientmust be “understood” individually in order to “make” a diagnosis. This is also seen as the greatest challenge for medical teaching, which has so far paid little attention to this aspect. The complexity of
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
GMS Journal for Medical Education
GMS Journal for Medical Education EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
30
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: GMS Journal for Medical Education (GMS J Med Educ) – formerly GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung – publishes scientific articles on all aspects of undergraduate and graduate education in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, pharmacy and other health professions. Research and review articles, project reports, short communications as well as discussion papers and comments may be submitted. There is a special focus on empirical studies which are methodologically sound and lead to results that are relevant beyond the respective institution, profession or country. Please feel free to submit qualitative as well as quantitative studies. We especially welcome submissions by students. It is the mission of GMS Journal for Medical Education to contribute to furthering scientific knowledge in the German-speaking countries as well as internationally and thus to foster the improvement of teaching and learning and to build an evidence base for undergraduate and graduate education. To this end, the journal has set up an editorial board with international experts. All manuscripts submitted are subjected to a clearly structured peer review process. All articles are published bilingually in English and German and are available with unrestricted open access. Thus, GMS Journal for Medical Education is available to a broad international readership. GMS Journal for Medical Education is published as an unrestricted open access journal with at least four issues per year. In addition, special issues on current topics in medical education research are also published. Until 2015 the journal was published under its German name GMS Zeitschrift für Medizinische Ausbildung. By changing its name to GMS Journal for Medical Education, we wish to underline our international mission.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信