The exact tests and procedures will depend on your symptoms. What do my results mean? Is there anything else I need to know about a differential diagnosis? Teaching differential diagnosis in primary care using an inverted classroom approach: student satisfaction and gain in skills and knowledge. The Generalized Rash: Part I. Am Fam Physician [Internet]. Philadelphia: Health Union; c Bethesda MD : U. A new arrival: evidence about differential diagnosis. BMJ [Internet]. Fam Pract. Hegedus E.
J Man Manip Ther. Cadogan A. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination and imaging findings for identifying subacromial pain. Jackson J. Evaluation of acute knee pain in primary care. Leblanc M. Diagnostic accuracy of physical examination for anterior knee instability: a systematic review. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. Decary S. Cook C. Red flag screening for low back pain: nothing to see here, move along: a narrative review.
Br J Sports Med. Premkumar A. Red flags for low back pain are not always really red: a prospective evaluation of the clinical utility of commonly used screening questions for low back pain. J Bone Joint Surg Am. Karachalios T. Diagnostic accuracy of a new clinical test the Thessaly test for early detection of meniscal tears. Smith B. Special tests for assessing meniscal tears within the knee: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Evid Based Med. Rutjes A. Evidence of bias and variation in diagnostic accuracy studies.
Croskerry P. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning. Ely J. Checklists to reduce diagnostic errors. Jaeschke R. Crit Care Med. Pathirana T. Mapping the drivers of overdiagnosis to potential solutions. Brodersen J. Focusing on overdiagnosis as a driver of too much medicine.
Kale M. Overdiagnosis in primary care: framing the problem and finding solutions. Jenkins H. Imaging for low back pain: is clinical use consistent with guidelines?.
A systematic review and meta-analysis. Spine J. Brinjikji W. MRI findings of disc degeneration are more prevalent in adults with low back pain than in asymptomatic controls: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Jarvik J. Rapid magnetic resonance imaging vs radiographs for patients with low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Culvenor A. Prevalence of knee osteoarthritis features on magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic uninjured adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frank J.
Prevalence of femoroacetabular impingement imaging findings in asymptomatic volunteers: a systematic review. Girish G. Ultrasound of the shoulder: asymptomatic findings in men. Korenstein D. Development of a conceptual map of negative consequences for patients of overuse of medical tests and treatments. Karel Y. Effect of routine diagnostic imaging for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a meta-analysis.
Eur J Intern Med. Swart N. Does MRI add value in general practice for patients with traumatic knee complaints?. A 1-year randomised controlled trial. Lam O. Effectiveness of the McKenzie method of mechanical diagnosis and therapy for treating low back pain: literature review with meta-analysis.
Forgot Password? Remember me. Broaden your differential diagnosis and reduce clinical uncertainty Isabel is used by clinicians worldwide to help manage clinical uncertainty by matching clinical features to diseases. Please confirm country of residence:. Rest of World. Differential diagnosis is the process whereby a given condition or circumstance, called the presenting problem or chief complaint , is examined in terms of underlying causal factors and concurrent phenomena as discerned by appropriate disciplinary perspectives and according to several theoretical paradigms or frames of reference, and compared to known categories of pathology or exceptionality.
Differential diagnosis allows the physician to:. If the patient's condition does not improve as anticipated when the treatment or therapy for the disease or disorder has been applied, the diagnosis must be reassessed. The method of differential diagnosis is based on the idea that one begins by first considering the statistically more probable diagnoses. Medical students are taught the adage, "When you hear hoofbeats in Texas, think horses, not zebras"; only after more probable diagnoses are ruled out should the somewhat less likely ones be considered.
It used to be that doctors ordered only particular blood tests, but now a full blood-chemistry profile is standard, which can speed up the process of diagnosis as well as uncover sub-clinical conditions. With the advent of better radiological studies like MRI and the wider use of nuclear medicine , it has become more likely that there will be unexpected findings that will be further studied, though such findings may not be supported by further investigation.
They are a valuable tool, but not infallible; it still often takes a physicians' or medical team to track down either a more common illness with a rare presentation , or a rare illness with symptoms suggestive of many other conditions.
Sometimes a definitive diagnosis might take years. Differential diagnosis also refers simply to a list of the most common causes of a given symptom, or a list of disorders similar to a given disorder, or to such lists when they are annotated with advice on how to narrow the list down the book French's Index of Differential Diagnosis ISBN is an example.
Thus, a differential diagnosis in this sense is medical information specially organized to aid in diagnosis. The professional Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy has 11 index entries describing the topic as differential diagnosis. The topic is mentioned within the body of other separate articles on various medical conditions. The patient presents with symptoms A and B. The diagnosistician creates a list of diseases, disorders and syndromes that include symptoms A and B.
Consider there are only three "disease processes" that feature both these symptoms. Let them be called Conditions 1, 2 and 3. The diagnostician now tests for the presence of symptom C. A positive result would support a diagnosis of Condition 1 or 2, and would rule out the possibility of Condition 3.
If the client tested positive for C, a test for D could be used to differentiate between Condition 1 and Condition 2. If the client tested negative for C, a test for E would confirm the diagnosis of Condition 3.
0コメント