Test 1 Flashcards
(632 cards)
Diagnostic Process order
1) Identify the problem
2) Frame the differential diagnosis in a way that facilitates recall
3) Organize differential diagnosis
4) limit the differentials by using pivotal points to create a pt specific differential
5) Explore pt specific differentials - using history and physical exam findings
6) Rank the differentials using results of exploration
- select leading differential
- select must not miss
- select additional alternatives
7) Test
8) re-rank
9) Test
What is the most precise way of estimating pretest probability.
CDRs ( clinical decision rule )
which system reasoning is used based on memory
System 1
Which system reasoning is a more analytical approach
System 2
How should problem lists be organized?
Acute problems
chronic active problems
ending with inactive problems.
What are the components used for assessing pretest probability
use a validated clinical decision rule (CDR)
use prevalence data regarding the causes/etiologies of a symptom
use your overall clinical impression
probability above which the diagnosis is so likely you would treat the patient without further testing
treatment threshold
the probability below which the diagnosis is so unlikely it is excluded without further testing
test threshold
the probability of disease after the test is done
posttest probability
How likely can we “rule this in”
Sensitivity
the higher a sensitivity is (and the more symptoms/findings usually), the more likely we can
“rule in” a disease.
“rule this out”
Specificity
USPSTF levels of certainty regarding net benefit
net benefit = benefit – harm as implemented in a primary care population
Consistent results from well-designed studies in representative primary care populations that assess the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes; it is unlikely that these conclusions will change based on future studies.
USPSTF levels of certainty - High
Evidence sufficient to determine the effects of the preventive service on health outcomes, but methodologic issues such as limited generalizability, inconsistent findings, or inadequate size or number of studies exist; these conclusions could change based on future studies.
USPSTF levels of certainty - Moderate
Insufficient evidence to assess effects on health outcomes, due to limited number or size of studies, flaws in study designs, inconsistency of findings, lack of generalizability.
USPSTF levels of certainty - Low
The USPSTF recommends this service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is substantial.
Grades of recommendations - Grade A
The USPSTF recommends this service. There is high certainty that the net benefit is moderate or there is moderate certainty that the net benefit is moderate to substantial
Grades of recommendations - Grade B
The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences. There is at least moderate certainty that the net benefit is small.
Grades of recommendations - Grade C
The USPSTF recommends against the service. There is moderate or high certainty that the service has no net benefit or that the harms outweigh the benefits.
Grades of recommendations - Grade D
The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the balance of benefits and harms of the service. Evidence is lacking, of poor quality, or conflicting, and the balance of benefits and harms cannot be determined.
Grades of recommendations - Grade I statement
higher the specificity is, the more likely we can
“rule out” a disease
OLDCARTS
onset location duration character aggravating or associated factors relieving factors temporal factors severity
are the physiological links, predisposing factors, and complications for this disease present in the patient?
coherence