{"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}
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
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.