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 (15 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7424.0-g
Have you often been bothered by feeling down, depressed, or hopeless? Have you often had little interest or pleasure in doing things? We might ask our patientsor even ourselvesthese two questions, but how useful might they be in diagnosing depression? Doctors have been asking these and other questions for many years; even the shortest screening questionnaires generally run to at least seven questions and take several minutes in a consultation. Bruce Arroll and colleagues hypothesised that asking these two questions during a consultation would offer a quick and reliable screen for depression in primary care (p 1144). When both answers were no, people were unlikely to be depressed (high number of true negatives, low false negatives). But the method produced many false positives, requiring further questioning from the clinician to confirm the diagnosis. A weakness of the study is the lack of a non-screened comparison group, but the authors argue that their two questions are a "good compromise between the time required to administer the screen and the likelihood ratio."
More and more researchers are evaluating diagnostic tests. Paul Sullivan's team set out to determine how many common clinical tests used in a respiratory medicine outpatient clinic are based on high quality evidence (p 1136). Only half the tests used to make or exclude a diagnosis were supported by evidence of level 1a-1c. Only a fifth of tests that were used to assess a known condition were supported by high level evidence, and trials of therapy had no evidence to support them. Evidence based resources like the Cochrane database and Clinical Evidence have traditionally focused on therapeuticsbut their focus is shifting to diagnostics. In the first issue of this year we published the STARD guidelines for reporting diagnostic studies. Clearly there is a raised consciousness about diagnostics, which Chris Del Mar and Paul Glasziou describe (p 1117) as "the dawn of a new phase of evidence based practice: the diagnostic age." Some of what we now take for granted, they say, will quickly become outdated as new ways appear, such as the two questions screening for depression as proposed by Arroll's team.
The diagnosis in the book that won the Man Booker prize this year, Vernon God Little, is clear: wrongful arrest. A young man's liberty is stolen by a system that has decided on his guilt instead of asking the right questions and performing appropriate investigationsa failure of detective work, you might call it. No such criticism can be made of syphilis detective Deborah Hayden, whose intuition leads herin her book Pox: Genius, Madness, and the Mysteries of Syphilisto "explosive conclusions" about how syphilis influenced the careers of Oscar Wilde, Vincent Van Gogh, James Joyce, and Adolf Hitler (p 1173) In another book, journalist Jörg Blech casts the medicalisation story in a German context after being enraged by a new psychiatric diagnosis for stressed fathers"caged tiger syndrome" (p 1173).
Kamran Abbasi, deputy editor
(kabbasi{at}bmj.com)
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses
UK medical students have published unreleased government plans to restrict failed asylum seekers' access to medical care