Section of General Internal Medicine, Veterans Affairs Pittsburgh Healthcare System, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15240-1001, USA.
Acad Med. 2011 May;86(5):618-27. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318212eb00.
To determine how examination findings influence the probability assessment and diagnostic decision making of third- and fourth-year medical students, internal medicine residents, and academic general internists.
In a 2008 cross-sectional, Web-based survey, participants from three medical schools were asked questions about their training and eight examination scenarios representing four conditions. Participants were given literature-derived preexamination probabilities for each condition and were asked to (1) estimate postexamination probabilities (post-EPs) and (2) select a diagnostic choice (report that condition is present, order more tests, or report that condition is absent). Participants' inverse transformed logit (ITL) mean post-EPs were compared with corresponding literature-derived post-EPs.
Of 906 individuals invited to participate, 684 (75%) submitted a completed survey. In two of four scenarios with positive findings, the participants' ITL mean post-EPs were significantly less than corresponding literature-derived post-EP point estimates (P<.001 for each). In three of four scenarios with negative findings, ITL mean post-EPs were significantly greater than corresponding literature-derived post-EP point estimates (P<.001 for each). In the four scenarios with positive findings, 17% to 38% of participants ordered more diagnostic tests when the literature indicated a >85% probability that the condition was present. In the four scenarios with largely negative findings, 70% to 85% chose to order diagnostic tests to further reduce diagnostic uncertainty.
All three groups tended to similarly underestimate the impact of examination findings on condition probability assessment, especially negative findings, and often ordered more tests when probabilities indicated that additional testing was unnecessary.
确定检查结果如何影响三年级和四年级医学生、内科住院医师和学术全科住院医师的概率评估和诊断决策。
在 2008 年的一项横断面、基于网络的调查中,来自三所医学院的参与者被问及他们的培训和八个代表四种情况的检查场景的问题。参与者获得了每个条件的文献衍生的检查前概率,并被要求 (1) 估计检查后的概率 (后-EP) 和 (2) 选择诊断选择 (报告该情况存在、开更多的检查或报告该情况不存在)。参与者的逆变换对数 (ITL) 平均后-EP 与相应的文献衍生后-EP 进行了比较。
在 906 名受邀参与的人中,有 684 人 (75%) 提交了一份完整的调查。在四个具有阳性发现的场景中的两个中,参与者的 ITL 平均后-EP 明显低于相应的文献衍生后-EP 点估计 (P<.001,每个场景)。在四个具有阴性发现的场景中的三个中,ITL 平均后-EP 明显大于相应的文献衍生后-EP 点估计 (P<.001,每个场景)。在四个具有阳性发现的场景中,当文献表明该情况存在的概率 >85%时,17%至 38%的参与者会开更多的诊断性检查。在四个具有主要阴性发现的场景中,70%至 85%的人选择进行诊断性检查,以进一步降低诊断不确定性。
所有三组人都倾向于类似地低估检查结果对疾病概率评估的影响,尤其是阴性发现,并且当概率表明额外的测试是不必要的时,他们经常会开更多的测试。