Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:1117 (15 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7424.1117
Evidence based information on diagnostic tests will help
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
How many general practitioners will read this week's paper by Arroll et al on diagnosing depression (p 1144)1 and sigh, "Another thing we have to do"? On the face of it we have a simple and accurate "test" for depression that is effective. Does this then impose a burden on the backs of general practitioners, another duty that will attract censure if not done properly? We think not. Rather, we ask what can be dropped, and how we can simplify our clinical work?
Making diagnoses has often been taught as a long and complicated process. "First take a thorough history" is the unhelpful advice from textbooks. What does that mean? Ask what is often a muddle of questions, and listen to a lot of information. Then pursue some lines of inquiry and not others. Finally synthesise this to come up with a list of possibilities (the differential diagnoses).
Chris Del Mar, professor of general practice
Centre for General Practice, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia (c.delmar@cgp.uq.edu.au)
Paul Glasziou, director
University of Oxford, Department of Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences, Oxford OX3 7LF
Read all Rapid Responses