Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
We cannot allow that to happen: there is still time to change.
Dependence on technology for diagnosis is increasing enormously. There is now not only a need for doctors but also a need for patients to know the results of any laboratory test or imaging.
The value of physical examination cannot be questioned. Perhaps in many parts of the world, technology aids to diagnosis can actually replace a good physical examination. But living in a low-income country has shown us the true importance of this and the need to implement a good system of medical education to definitely stop training doctors with poor clinical skills.(1)
(1) Fred HL. Hyposkillia: deficiency of clinical skills. Tex Heart Inst J. 2005; 32(3): 255–257.
This article focuses mainly on the objective value of physical examination as a set of tests.
It is, of course, important to understand the sensitivity and specificity of physical examination as a test for individual findings.
But the examination is more than the sum of its parts. It is part of the interaction between physician and patients. It helps establish bonds of trust, partly by meeting patient expectations (although these may change over time). It also helps physicians to systematically think through the differential diagnosis; and understanding why you undertake each aspect of the examination reinforces understanding of the potential pathophysiology: these aspects of the examination may be particularly important for less experienced clinicians.
I wouldn't want to argue for wasting time on inappropriate and intrusive examinations (such as the PR examination that was de rigeur at every clerking examination when I was a junior doctor); but don't lets forget the broader value of cardiovascular examination.
There will come a day when patients rely more on technology than their doctors ?
We cannot allow that to happen: there is still time to change.
Dependence on technology for diagnosis is increasing enormously. There is now not only a need for doctors but also a need for patients to know the results of any laboratory test or imaging.
The value of physical examination cannot be questioned. Perhaps in many parts of the world, technology aids to diagnosis can actually replace a good physical examination. But living in a low-income country has shown us the true importance of this and the need to implement a good system of medical education to definitely stop training doctors with poor clinical skills.(1)
(1) Fred HL. Hyposkillia: deficiency of clinical skills. Tex Heart Inst J. 2005; 32(3): 255–257.
Competing interests: No competing interests