Symptom to diagnosis an evidence based guide 3rd

The differential diagnosis for that particular case is summarized intables that delineate the clinical clues and important tests for the leading diagnostic hypothesis andimportant altern

Copyright © 2015 by McGraw-Hill Education All rights reserved Except as permitted under theUnited States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed inany form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written

permission of the publisher

Notice

Medicine is an ever-changing science As new research and clinical experience broaden our

knowledge, changes in treatment and drug therapy are required The authors and the publisher ofthis work have checked with sources believed to be reliable in their efforts to provide informationthat is complete and generally in accord with the standards accepted at the time of publication

However, in view of the possibility of human error or changes in medical sciences, neither the

authors nor the publisher nor any other party who has been involved in the preparation or

publication of this work warrants that the information contained herein is in every respect accurate

or complete, and they disclaim all responsibility for any errors or omissions or for the results

obtained from use of the information contained in this work Readers are encouraged to confirmthe information contained herein with other sources For example and in particular, readers areadvised to check the product information sheet included in the package of each drug they plan toadminister to be certain that the information contained in this work is accurate and that changeshave not been made in the recommended dose or in the contraindications for administration Thisrecommendation is of particular importance in connection with new or infrequently used drugs

prior consent You may use the work for your own noncommercial and personal use; any other use ofthe work is strictly prohibited Your right to use the work may be terminated if you fail to complywith these terms.

THE WORK IS PROVIDED “AS IS.” MCGRAW-HILL EDUCATION AND ITS LICENSORS

MAKE NO GUARANTEES OR WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY, ADEQUACY OR

COMPLETENESS OF OR RESULTS TO BE OBTAINED FROM USING THE WORK,

INCLUDING ANY INFORMATION THAT CAN BE ACCESSED THROUGH THE WORK VIAHYPERLINK OR OTHERWISE, AND EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ANY WARRANTY, EXPRESS

OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF

MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE McGraw-Hill Educationand its licensors do not warrant or guarantee that the functions contained in the work will meet yourrequirements or that its operation will be uninterrupted or error free Neither McGraw-Hill Educationnor its licensors shall be liable to you or anyone else for any inaccuracy, error or omission,

regardless of cause, in the work or for any damages resulting therefrom McGraw-Hill Education has

no responsibility for the content of any information accessed through the work Under no

circumstances shall McGraw-Hill Education and/or its licensors be liable for any indirect,

incidental, special, punitive, consequential or similar damages that result from the use of or inability

to use the work, even if any of them has been advised of the possibility of such damages This

limitation of liability shall apply to any claim or cause whatsoever whether such claim or cause

arises in contract, tort or otherwise

In memory of Kim Michele Stern

10 Cough, Fever, and Respiratory Infections

11 Delirium and Dementia

32 Weight Loss, Unintentional

33 Wheezing and Stridor

Index

Contributing Authors

Jean-Luc Benoit, MD

Associate Professor of Medicine

Section of Infectious Diseases and Global Health

Cardiovascular Medicine Fellow

University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics

Madison, Wisconsin

Hypotension

(Coauthored with Scott Stern)

Wei Wei Lee, MD

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Section of General Medicine

Assistant Professor of Medicine

Section of General Medicine

Elizabeth Schulwolf, MD

Assistant Professor of MedicineDivision of Hospital MedicineLoyola University Medical CenterMaywood, Illinois

Screening and Health Maintenance

(Coauthored with Diane Altkorn)

Our goal in creating Symptom to Diagnosis was to develop an interesting, practical, and informative

approach to teaching the diagnostic process in internal medicine Interesting, because real patientcases are integrated within each chapter, complementing what can otherwise be dry and soporific

Informative, because Symptom to Diagnosis articulates the most difficult process in becoming a

physician: making an accurate diagnosis Many other textbooks describe diseases, but fail to

characterize the process that leads from patient presentation to diagnosis Although students can, andoften do, learn this process through intuition and experience without direct instruction, we believethat diagnostic reasoning is a difficult task that can be deciphered and made easier for students

Furthermore, in many books the description of the disease is oversimplified, and the available

evidence on the predictive value of symptoms, signs, and diagnostic test results is not included

Teaching based on the classic presentation often fails to help less experienced physicians recognizethe common, but atypical presentation This oversight, combined with a lack of knowledge of testcharacteristics, often leads to prematurely dismissing diagnoses

Symptom to Diagnosis aims to help students and residents learn internal medicine and focuses on

the challenging task of diagnosis Using the framework and terminology presented in Chapter 1, eachchapter addresses one common complaint, such as chest pain The chapter begins with a case and anexplanation of a way to frame, or organize, the differential diagnosis As the case progresses, clinicalreasoning is clearly articulated The differential diagnosis for that particular case is summarized intables that delineate the clinical clues and important tests for the leading diagnostic hypothesis andimportant alternative diagnostic hypotheses As the chapter progresses, the pertinent diseases arereviewed Just as in real life, the case unfolds in a stepwise fashion as tests are performed and

diagnoses are confirmed or refuted Readers are continually engaged by a series of questions thatdirect the evaluation Each chapter contains several cases and includes a diagnostic algorithm

Symptom to Diagnosis can be used in three ways First, it is designed to be read in its entirety to

guide the reader through a third-year medicine clerkship We used the Core Medicine Clerkship

Curriculum Guide of the Society of General Internal Medicine/Clerkship Directors in Internal

Medicine to select the symptoms and diseases we included, and we are confident that the text does anexcellent job teaching the basics of internal medicine Second, it is perfect for learning about a

particular problem by studying an individual chapter Focusing on one chapter will provide the

reader with a comprehensive approach to the problem being addressed: a framework for the

differential diagnosis, an opportunity to work through several interesting cases, and a review of

pertinent diseases Third, Symptom to Diagnosis is well suited to reviewing specific diseases

through the use of the index to identify information on a particular disorder of immediate interest.Our approach to the discussion of a particular disease is different than most other texts Not only isthe information bulleted to make it concise and readable, but the discussion of each disease is divided

into 4 sections The Textbook Presentation, which serves as a concise statement of the common, or classic, presentation of that particular disease, is the first part The next section, Disease Highlights,

reviews the most pertinent epidemiologic and pathophysiologic information The third part,

Evidence-Based Diagnosis, reviews the accuracy of the history, physical exam, and laboratory and

radiologic tests for that specific disease Whenever possible, we have listed the sensitivities,

specificities, and likelihood ratios for these findings and test results This section allows us to pointout the findings that help “rule in” or “rule out” the various diseases History and physical exam

findings so highly specific that they point directly to a particular diagnosis are indicated with thefollowing “fingerprint” icon:

We also often suggest a test of choice It is this part of the book in particular that separates this text

from many others In the final section, Treatment, we review the basics of therapy for the disease

being considered Recognizing that treatment evolves at a rapid pace, we have chosen to limit ourdiscussion to the fundamentals of therapy rather than details that would become quickly out of date

The third edition differs from the second in several ways First, there are five new chapters—Bleeding Disorders, Dysuria, Hematuria, Hypotension, and Sore Throat Second, we have more

clearly articulated the process of working from patient-level data (signs, symptoms, and laboratorytests) to an accurate diagnosis This process includes greater use of algorithms, often very early in thechapters

For generations the approach to diagnosis has been learned through apprenticeship and intuition.Diseases have been described in detail, but the approach to diagnosis has not been formalized In

Symptom to Diagnosis we feel we have succeeded in articulating this science and art and, at the same

time, made the text interesting to read

Scott D C Stern, MD Adam S Cifu, MD Diane Altkorn, MD

We would like to thank our coauthors, who now number eight, for their hard work in expanding thistext We are grateful for the support of Harriet Lebowitz and James Shanahan at McGraw-Hill, whohave helped us throughout this process and believed in our vision Thanks to Jennifer Bernstein forher meticulous copyediting Finally, our patients deserve special praise, for sharing their lives with

us, trusting us, and forgiving us when our limited faculties err, as they inevitably do It is for them that

we practice our art

Scott Stern: I would like to thank a few of the many people who have contributed to this projecteither directly or indirectly First I would like to thank my wife Laura, whose untiring support

throughout the last 32 years of our lives and during this project, made this work possible Other

members of my family have also been very supportive including my children Michael, David, andElena; my parents Suzanne Black and Robert Stern; and my grandmother, Elsie Clamage Two

mentors deserve special mention David Sischy shared his tremendous clinical wisdom and insightswith me over 10 wonderful years that we worked together David is the best diagnostician I have metand taught me more about clinical medicine than anyone else in my career I remain in his debt Iwould also like to note my appreciation to my late advisor, Dr John Ultmann Dr Ultmann

demonstrated the art of compassion in his dealings with patients on a day-to-day basis on a busyhematology-oncology service in 1983

Adam Cifu: Excellent mentors are hard to find I have been fortunate to find great ones throughout

my life and career My parents gave me every opportunity imaginable Claude Wintner taught me theimportance of organization, dedication, and focus, and gave me a model of a gifted educator OlafAndersen nurtured my interest in science and guided my entry into medicine Carol Bates showed mewhat it means to be a specialist in general medicine and a clinician educator My family, Sarah, Ben,and Amelia, always remind me of what is most important Thank you

Diane Altkorn: I want to thank the students and house officers at the University of Chicago forhelping me to continually examine and refine my thinking about clinical medicine and how to practiceand teach it I have been fortunate to have many wonderful mentors and teachers I particularly want

to mention Dr Steven MacBride, who first taught me clinical reasoning and influenced me to become

a general internist and clinician educator As a resident and junior faculty member, I had the privilege

of being part of Dr Arthur Rubenstein’s Department of Medicine at the University of Chicago Dr.Rubenstein’s commitment to excellence in all aspects of medicine is a standard to which I will

always aspire His kind encouragement and helpful advice have been invaluable in my professionaldevelopment Finally, I am grateful for my family My parents have provided lifelong support andencouragement My husband, Bob, is eternally patient and supportive of everything I do And without

my children Danny and Emily, my life would be incomplete

I have a patient with a problem How do I figure

out the possible causes?

THE DIAGNOSTIC PROCESS

Constructing a differential diagnosis, choosing diagnostic tests, and interpreting the results are keyskills for all physicians The diagnostic process, often called clinical reasoning, is complex, anderrors in reasoning are thought to account for 17% of all adverse events Diagnostic errors can occurdue to faulty knowledge, faulty data gathering, and faulty information processing While this chapterwill focus on the reasoning process, remember that the data you acquire through your history andphysical exam, sometimes accompanied by preliminary laboratory tests, form the basis for your initialclinical impression Even with flawless reasoning, your final diagnosis will be wrong if you do notstart with accurate data You must have well developed interviewing and physical examination skills

Clinicians often use a combination of 2 reasoning processes: non-analytical/intuitive and

analytical The intuitive process is rapid and consists of an unconscious match to examples stored inmemory, while the analytical process is slow, logical, and rule-based Clinicians should be aware ofcommon biases in clinical reasoning (Table 1-1) and reflect upon their reasoning processes, lookingfor potential errors This chapter breaks down the reasoning process into a series of steps that canhelp you work through large differential diagnoses, avoid biases, and retrospectively identify sources

of error when your diagnosis is wrong

Table 1-1 Common biases in clinical reasoning.

A MODEL FOR CLINICAL REASONING (Figure 1-1)

Figure 1-1 A model for clinical reasoning.

Step 1: Identify the Problem

Be certain you understand what the patient is telling you Sometimes “I’m tired” means “I becomeshort of breath when I walk” and at other times means “My muscles are weak.” Construct a completeproblem list consisting of the chief complaint, other acute symptoms and physical exam abnormalities,chronic active problems (such as diabetes or hypertension), and important past problems (such ashistory of bowel obstruction or cancer) Problems that are likely to be related, such as shortness ofbreath and chest pain, should be grouped together It is necessary to accurately identify the problemevery time you evaluate a patient

Step 2: Frame the Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis should be framed in a way that facilitates recall It might be possible to

memorize long lists of causes, or differential diagnoses, for various problems However, doing sowould not necessarily lead to a useful organization of differentials that helps you remember or use

them Instead, it is preferable to use some kind of problem-specific framework to organize

differentials into subcategories that are easier to remember and often clinically useful

Problem-specific frameworks can be anatomic, a framework often used for chest pain; organ/system, used for symptoms with very broad differentials like fatigue; physiologic; or based on pivotal points (defined

below) Each chapter in Symptom to Diagnosis begins with a problem-specific framework for the

differential Using such frameworks has been shown to improve the diagnostic accuracy of medicalstudents

Step 3: Organize the Differential Diagnosis

Structuring the differential diagnosis into clinically useful subgroups can enable you to systematically

work through the differential diagnosis Sometimes the framework that is easiest to remember, such asgrouping causes of dyspnea as cardiac or pulmonary, does not facilitate reasoning Then, reorganizingthe differential in a way that helps you understand the order in which to consider various diagnoses isnecessary The most clinically useful differentials are organized using pivotal points, one of a pair ofopposing descriptors that compare and contrast diagnoses, or clinical characteristics Examples

include old versus new headache, unilateral versus bilateral edema, and right lower quadrant painversus epigastric pain When pivotal points are used to frame the differential in the first place, it isnot necessary to reorganize the differential

You can frame and reorganize the differential yourself or find a source that does so in a way that

makes sense to you Each chapter in Symptom to Diagnosis contains a diagnostic algorithm that uses

pivotal points to highlight logical reasoning pathways for each symptom Steps 2 and 3 need to bedone only once for each problem you encounter; with experience, you will develop a repertoire oflogically framed differentials and structured diagnostic approaches

Step 4: Limit the Differential Diagnosis

Since every disease in a differential may not be relevant to an individual patient, using pivotal points

to create a patient-specific differential diagnosis can help narrow the list Extracting pivotal points

from the history and physical exam enables the clinician to limit a large, complete differential

diagnosis to a more focused set of diagnoses pertinent to that particular patient This step, and steps 5through 9, should be included in your clinical reasoning for all patients

Step 5: Explore Possible Diagnoses Using History and Physical Exam Findings

The next step is to look for clinical clues that point toward the most likely diagnosis Does the patient

have risk factors for a particular diagnosis? Does the patient’s description of the symptom suggest a

likely cause? What have you observed on physical exam? Focus on the positive—positive findings

on history or physical exam are important (65% of positive findings have a specificity > 80% and

43% of positive findings have a specificity > 90%) One-third have an LR+ > 5, and 16% have anLR+ > 10 Some very specific findings strongly suggest a specific diagnosis because they are rarelyseen in patients without the disease, just as fingerprints point to a specific person because they are notseen in more than 1 individual Such “fingerprint” findings will be marked with the symbol “FP”

throughout the book On the other hand, do not be fooled by the negative; “classic” findings,

especially individual findings, are often absent Only 21% of negative findings have a sensitivity >

80%, and only 11% of > 90%; just 7% have an LR– of < 0.1

Step 6: Rank the Differential Diagnosis

Rank the differential diagnosis using the results obtained in Step 5 Even in a limited differential, notall diagnoses are equally likely or equally important There are 4 approaches to ranking, or

prioritizing, the differential diagnosis for a given problem: possibilistic, probabilistic, prognostic,and pragmatic

A Possibilistic approach: Consider all known causes equally likely and simultaneously test for all of

them This is not a useful approach

B Probabilistic approach: Consider first those disorders that are more likely; that is, those with the highest pretest probability, the probability that a disease is present before further testing is done.

C Prognostic approach: Consider the most serious diagnoses first.

D Pragmatic approach: Consider the diagnoses most responsive to treatment first.

Clearly there are limitations to each of these individual approaches Experienced clinicians

simultaneously integrate probabilistic, prognostic, and pragmatic approaches when reorganizing andprioritizing a differential diagnosis in order to decide when testing is necessary and which test toorder (Table 1-2) Clinicians use their knowledge of pivotal points; “fingerprints”; risk factors;

typical or “textbook” presentations of disease; the variability of disease presentation; and prevalenceand prognosis to select a leading hypothesis, must not miss hypotheses, and other active alternativehypotheses

Table 1-2 Ranking the differential diagnosis.

Step 7: Test Your Hypotheses

Sometimes you are certain about the diagnosis based on the initial data and proceed to treatment.Most of the time, however, you require additional data to confirm your diagnostic hypotheses; in otherwords, you need to order diagnostic tests Whenever you do so, you should understand how much thetest will change the probability the patient has the disease in question

Step 8: Re-rank the Differential Based on New Data

Remember, ruling out a disease is usually not enough; you must also determine the cause of the

patient’s symptom For example, you may have eliminated myocardial infarction (MI) as a cause ofchest pain, but you still need to determine whether the pain is due to gastroesophageal reflux, musclestrain, aortic dissection, etc Whenever you have not made a diagnosis, or when you encounter data

that conflict with your original hypotheses, go back to the complete differential diagnosis and

reprioritize it, taking the new data into consideration Failure to reconsider the possibilities is calledpremature closure (see Table 1-1), one of the most common diagnostic errors made by clinicians

Step 9: Test the New Hypotheses

Repeat the process until a diagnosis is reached

CONSTRUCTING A DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS

Step 1: Identify the Problem

PATIENT

Mrs S is a 58-year-old woman who comes to an urgent care clinic complaining of painful

swelling of her left calf that has lasted for 2 days She feels slightly feverish but has no other

symptoms such as chest pain, shortness of breath, or abdominal pain She has been completelyhealthy except for hypertension, osteoarthritis of her knees, and a cholecystectomy, with no

history of other medical problems, surgeries, or fractures Her only medication is

hydrochlorothiazide She had a normal pelvic exam and Pap smear 1 month ago Physical examshows that the circumference of her left calf is 3.5 cm greater than her right calf, and there is 1+pitting edema The left calf is uniformly red and very tender, and there is slight tenderness alongthe popliteal vein and medial left thigh There is a healing cut on her left foot Her temperature is37.7°C The rest of her exam is normal

What is Mrs S’s problem list?

Problem lists should begin with the acute problems, followed by chronic active problems, endingwith inactive problems Mrs S’s problems are (1) painful left leg edema with erythema, (2)

hypertension, (3) osteoarthritis of the knees, and (4) status post cholecystectomy

Step 2: Frame the Differential Diagnosis

How do you frame the differential diagnosis for edema?

As discussed in Chapter 17, Edema, the problem-specific organization of the full differential

diagnosis starts with the distribution of the edema: generalized versus unilateral and limb versus

localized The causes of edema are fairly distinct for each of these subcategories For instance, heartfailure and chronic kidney disease cause generalized not unilateral edema.

Step 3: Organize the Differential Diagnosis

Since the edema differential is framed using the pivotal point of edema distribution, it is not

necessary to organize it—step 3 has already been done

Step 4: Limit the Differential Diagnosis

What are the pivotal points in Mrs S’s presentation? How would you limit the differential?

Mrs S has acute unilateral leg edema, a pivotal point that leads to a limited portion of the edema

differential

Diagnostic possibilities are now narrowed to a distinct subset of diseases that can be organizedusing an anatomic framework:

A. Skin: Stasis dermatitis

B. Soft tissue: Cellulitis

C. Calf veins: Distal deep venous thrombosis (DVT)

D. Knee: Ruptured Baker cyst

E. Thigh veins: Proximal DVT

F. Pelvis: Mass causing lymphatic obstruction

Step 5: Use History and Physical Exam Findings to Explore Possible Diagnoses

Consider the risk factors for each of the diagnostic possibilities as well as their associated symptomsand signs For example, venous insufficiency is a risk factor for stasis dermatitis, and there may behemosiderin staining along the malleolar surface on physical exam Cellulitis often follows skininjury, and physical exam shows erythema and tenderness DVT is more frequent in patients withunderlying malignancy or recent immobilization, and there may be shortness of breath if the clot hasembolized

Step 6: Rank the Differential Diagnosis

What are the important clinical clues in Mrs S’s presentation? How would you rank and

prioritize the limited differential? What is your leading hypothesis? What are your active alternatives?

Mrs S has a constellation of symptoms and signs supporting the diagnosis of cellulitis as the leadinghypothesis: fever; an entry site for infection on her foot; and a red, tender, swollen leg Even withoutrisk factors for DVT, the active alternatives are proximal and calf DVT, being both common and

“must not miss” diagnoses If cellulitis and DVT are not present, ruptured Baker cyst and a pelvicmass should be considered Finally, stasis dermatitis is excluded in a patient without a history ofchronic leg swelling

How certain are you that Mrs S has cellulitis? Should you treat her with antibiotics? How certain are you that she does not have DVT? Should you test for DVT?

THE ROLE OF DIAGNOSTIC TESTING

Step 7: Test Your Hypotheses

I have a leading hypothesis and an active alternative—how do I know if I need to do a test

or if I should start treatment?

Once you have generated a leading hypothesis, with or without active alternatives, you need to decidewhether you need further information before proceeding to treatment or before excluding other

diagnoses One way to think about this is in terms of certainty: how certain are you that your

hypothesis is correct, and how much more certain do you need to be before starting treatment?

Another way to think about this is in terms of probability: is your pretest probability of disease high

enough or low enough that you do not need any further information from a test?

Determine the Pretest Probability

There are several ways to determine the pretest probability of your leading hypothesis and most

important (often most serious) active alternatives: use a validated clinical decision rule (CDR), useprevalence data regarding the causes/etiologies of a symptom, and use your overall clinical

impression

A. Use a validated CDR

1 Investigators construct a list of potential predictors of a disease, and then examine a group of

patients to determine whether the predictors and the disease are present

a Logistic regression is then used to determine which predictors are most powerful and which

can be omitted

b The model is then validated by applying it in other patient populations.

c To simplify use, the clinical predictors in the model are often assigned point values, and

different point totals correspond to different pretest probabilities

2 CDRs are infrequently available but are the most precise way of estimating pretest probability.

3 If you can find a validated CDR, you can come up with an exact number (or a small range of

numbers) for your pretest probability

B. Use information about the prevalence of etiologies for a symptom

1 You can sometimes find this information in textbooks or review articles.

2 You can find studies providing this information by searching the symptom in question, combined

with the term “differential diagnosis.”

3 It is important to assess the quality of the studies you find before using the data Guyatt’s Users’

Guides to the Medical Literature provides criteria for evaluating articles about differential

diagnosis and disease frequency

C. Use your overall clinical impression

1 This is a combination of what you know about disease prevalence and the match between the

expected history and physical with that of the patient, mixed with your clinical experience, andthe ever elusive attribute “clinical judgment.”

2 This is just as imprecise as it sounds, and it has been shown that physicians are

disproportionately influenced by their most recent clinical experience

3 Nevertheless, it has also been shown that the overall clinical impression of experienced

clinicians has significant predictive value

4 Clinicians generally categorize pretest probability as low, moderate, or high This rather vague

categorization is still helpful Do not get distracted thinking a number is necessary

Consider the Potential Harms

Consider the potential harms of both a missed diagnosis and the treatment

A. It is very harmful to miss certain diagnoses, such as MI or pulmonary embolism, while it is not soharmful to miss others, such as mild carpal tunnel syndrome You need to be very certain that life-threatening diseases are not present (that is, have a very low pretest probability), before excludingthem without testing

B. Some treatments, such as thrombolytics, are more harmful than others, such as oral antibiotics; youneed to be very certain that potentially harmful treatments are needed (that is, the pretest

probability is very high) before prescribing them without testing

THE THRESHOLD MODEL: CONCEPTUALIZING

The ends of the bar in the threshold model represent 0% and 100% pretest probability The

treatment threshold is the probability above which the diagnosis is so likely you would treat the

patient without further testing The test threshold is the probability below which the diagnosis is so

unlikely it is excluded without further testing (Figure 1-2)

Figure 1-2 The threshold model

For example, consider Ms A, a 19-year-old woman, who complains of 30 seconds of sharp sided chest pain after lifting a heavy box The pretest probability of cardiac ischemia is so low that

right-no further testing is necessary (Figure 1-3)

Figure 1-3 Ms A’s threshold model

Now consider Mr B, a 60-year-old man, who smokes and has diabetes, hypertension, and 15

minutes of crushing substernal chest pain accompanied by nausea and diaphoresis, with an ECG

showing ST-segment elevations in the anterior leads The pretest probability of an acute MI is so highyou would treat without further testing, such as measuring cardiac enzymes (Figure 1-4)

Figure 1-4 Mr B’s threshold model.

Diagnostic tests are necessary when the pretest probability of disease is in the middle, above thetest threshold and below the treatment threshold A really useful test shifts the probability of disease

so much that the posttest probability (the probability of disease after the test is done) crosses one of

the thresholds (Figure 1-5)

Figure 1-5 The role of diagnostic testing

You are unable to find much information about estimating the pretest probability of cellulitis.You consider the potential risk of starting antibiotics to be low, and your overall clinical

impression is that the pretest probability of cellulitis is high enough to cross the treatment

threshold, so you start antibiotics

You consider the pretest probability of DVT to be low, but not so low you can exclude it

without testing, especially given the potential seriousness of this diagnostic possibility You areable to find a CDR that helps you quantify the pretest probability, and calculate that her pretestprobability is 17% (see Chapter 15)

You have read that duplex ultrasonography is the best noninvasive test for DVT How good

is it? Will a negative test rule out DVT?

UNDERSTANDING TEST RESULTS

How do I know whether a test is really useful—whether it will really shift the probability of disease across a threshold?

A perfect diagnostic test would always be positive in patients with the disease and would always benegative in patients without the disease (Figure 1-6) Since there are no perfect diagnostic tests, somepatients with the disease have negative tests (false-negative), and some without the disease havepositive tests (false-positive) (Figure 1-7)

Figure 1-6 A perfect diagnostic test

Figure 1-7 A pictorial representation of test characteristics

The test characteristics help you to know how often false results occur They are determined by

performing the test in patients known to have or not have the disease, and recording the distribution ofresults (Table 1-3)

Table 1-3 Test characteristics.

Table 1-4 shows the test characteristics of duplex ultrasonography for the diagnosis of proximalDVT, based on a hypothetical group of 200 patients, 90 of whom have DVT

Table 1-4 Results for calculating the test characteristics of duplex ultrasonography.

The sensitivity is the percentage of patients with DVT who have a true-positive (TP) test result:

Sensitivity = TP/total number of patients with DVT = 86/90 = 0.96 = 96%

Since tests with very high sensitivity have a very low percentage of false-negative results (in

Table 1-4, 4/90 = 0.04 = 4%), a negative result is likely a true negative

The specificity is the percentage of patients without DVT who have a true-negative (TN) test

result:

Specificity = TN/total number of patients without DVT = 108/110 = 0.98 = 98%

Since tests with very high specificity have a low percentage of false-positive results (in Table 1-4,2/110 = 0.02 = 2%), a positive result is likely a true positive

The sensitivity and specificity are important attributes of a test, but they do not tell you whether thetest result will change your pretest probability enough to move beyond the test or treatment

thresholds; the shift in probability depends on the interactions between sensitivity, specificity, and

pretest probability The likelihood ratio (LR), the likelihood that a given test result would occur in a

patient with the disease compared with the likelihood that the same result would occur in a patientwithout the disease, enables you to calculate how much the probability will shift

The positive likelihood ratio (LR+) tells you how likely it is that a result is a true-positive (TP),rather than a false-positive (FP):

Positive LRs that are significantly above 1 indicate that a true-positive is much more likely than

a false-positive, pushing you across the treatment threshold An LR+ > 10 causes a large shift in

disease probability; in general, tests with LR+ > 10 are very useful for ruling in disease An LR+between 5 and 10 causes a moderate shift in probability, and tests with these LRs are somewhat

useful “Fingerprints,” findings that often rule in a disease, have very high positive LRs

The negative likelihood ratio (LR–) tells you how likely it is that a result is a false-negative (FN),rather than a true-negative (TN):

Negative LRs that are significantly less than 1 indicate that a false-negative is much less likely

than a true-negative, pushing you below the test threshold An LR– less than 0.1 causes a large shift indisease probability; in general, tests with LR– less than 0.1 are very useful for ruling out disease AnLR– between 0.1 and 0.5 causes a moderate shift in probability, and tests with these LRs are

somewhat useful

The closer the LR is to 1, the less useful the test; tests with a LR = 1 do not change probability atall and are useless The threshold model in Figure 1-8 incorporates LRs and illustrates how tests canchange disease probability

Figure 1-8 Incorporating likelihood ratios (LRs) into the threshold model

When you have a specific pretest probability, you can use the LR to calculate an exact posttestprobability (see Box, Calculating an Exact Posttest Probability and Figure 1-9, Likelihood RatioNomogram) Table 1-5 shows some examples of how much LRs of different magnitudes change thepretest probability.

Figure 1-9 Likelihood ratio nomogram Find the patient’s pretest probability on the left, and thendraw a line through the likelihood ratio for the test to find the patient’s posttest probability.

Table 1-5 Calculating posttest probabilities using likelihood ratios (LRs) and pretest probabilities.

If you are using descriptive pretest probability terms such as low, moderate, and high, you can useLRs as follows:

A. A test with an LR– of 0.1 or less will rule out a disease of low or moderate pretest probability

B. A test with an LR+ of 10 or greater will rule in a disease of moderate or high probability

C Beware if the test result is the opposite of what you expected!

1 If your pretest probability is high, a negative test rarely rules out the disease, no matter what the

LR– is

2 If you pretest probability is low, a positive test rarely rules in the disease, no matter what the

LR+ is

3 In these situations, you need to perform another test.

Mrs S has a normal duplex ultrasound scan Since your pretest probability was moderate andthe LR– is < 0.1, proximal DVT has been ruled out Since duplex ultrasound is less sensitive fordistal than for proximal DVT, clinical follow-up is particularly important Some clinicians

repeat the duplex ultrasound after 1 week to confirm the absence of DVT, and some cliniciansorder a D-dimer assay When she returns for reexamination after 2 days, her leg looks much

better, with minimal erythema, no edema, and no tenderness The clinical response confirms

your diagnosis of cellulitis, and no further diagnostic testing is necessary (See Chapter 15 for afull discussion of the diagnostic approach to lower extremity DVT.)

CALCULATING AN EXACT POSTTEST PROBABILITY

For mathematical reasons, it is not possible to just multiply the pretest probability by the LR tocalculate the posttest probability Instead, it is necessary to convert to odds and then back to

A Step 1

1 Convert pretest probability to pretest odds.

2 Pretest odds = pretest probability/(1 − pretest probability).

B Step 2

1 Multiply pretest odds by the LR to get the posttest odds.

2 Posttest odds = pretest odds × LR.

C Step 3

1 Convert posttest odds to posttest probability.

2 Posttest probability = posttest odds/(1 + posttest odds).

For Mrs S, the pretest probability of DVT was 17%, and the LR− for duplex ultrasound

was 0.04

A Step 1: pretest odds = pretest probability/(1 − pretest probability) = 0.17/(1 − 0.17)

= 0.17/0.83 = 0.2

B Step 2: posttest odds = pretest odds × LR = 0.2 × 0.04 = 0.008

C Step 3: posttest probability = posttest odds/(1 + posttest odds) = 0.008/(1 + 0.008) =0.008/1.008 = 0.008

So Mrs S’s posttest probability of proximal DVT is 0.8%

REFERENCES

Bowen JL Educational strategies to promote clinical diagnostic reasoning N Engl J Med 2006;355:2217–25.

Coderre S, Jenkins D, McLaughlin K Qualitative differences in knowledge structure are associated with diagnostic performance in medical students Adv in Health Sci Educ 2009;14:677–84.

Croskerry P From mindless to mindful practice—cognitive bias and clinical decision making N Engl J Med 2013;368:2445–8 Graber ML, Franklin N, Gordon R Diagnostic error in internal medicine Arch Intern Med 2005;165:1493–9.

Guyatt G, Rennie D, Cook D Users Guides to the Medical Literature, 2nd ed McGraw Hill/JAMA 2008.

Norman G, Eva K Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning Med Educ 2010; 44:94–100.

Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Nishikawa J; for the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature: XV How to use an article about disease probability for differential diagnosis JAMA 1999;281:1214–9.

Sanders L Every Patient Tells a Story New York: Broadway Books; 2009.

I have a healthy patient How do I determine which

screening tests to order?

PATIENT

Mr S is a healthy 45-year-old white man who wants to be “checked for everything.”

How do you know when it is worthwhile to screen for a disease? Where do you find

information on screening guidelines? How do you interpret screening guidelines?

It seems intuitive that it is best to prevent a disease from occurring at all and next best to diagnose andtreat it early However, there are risks and benefits to every intervention, and it is especially

important to make sure an intervention is not going to harm a healthy individual This chapter focuses

on understanding the reasoning behind current screening practices

A. Screening can be used to identify an unrecognized disease or risk factor in a seemingly well

person

B. Screening can be accomplished by collecting a thorough history, performing a physical

examination, or obtaining laboratory tests

C. Examples of screening include mammography and cholesterol testing

1 Mammography can detect unrecognized, asymptomatic breast cancer.

2 Cholesterol testing can be used

a To identify high-risk individuals who do not yet have coronary disease (called primary

prevention by clinicians)

b To prevent complications in patients with known coronary disease (called secondary

prevention by clinicians, not actually screening)

D. The following criteria are helpful in determining whether screening for a disease is worthwhile:

1 The burden of disease must be sufficient to warrant screening.

a Screen only for conditions that cause severe disease, disability, or death.

b Consider prevalence of target disease and ability to identify high-risk group since the yield of

screening is higher in high-risk groups

2 The test used for screening must be of high quality.

a Screening tests should accurately detect the target disease when it is asymptomatic.

b Screening tests should have high sensitivity and specificity.

c Test results should be reproducible in a variety of settings.

d Screening tests must be safe and acceptable to patients.

e Ideally, screening tests should be simple and shown to be cost effective.

3 There should be evidence that screening reduces morbidity or mortality.

a There must be effective treatment for the target disease.

b Early detection followed by treatment must improve survival compared with detection and

treatment at the usual time of presentation; in other words, people in whom the condition wasdiagnosed by screening should have better health outcomes than those in whom the conditionwas diagnosed clinically

c The benefits of screening must outweigh any adverse effects of the screening test, treatment, or

impact of early diagnosis

d Ideally, benefits and harms are evaluated through a randomized trial of screening (Figure 1)

2-Figure 2-1 Design for a randomized trial of screening

(1) The best outcome to measure is either all-cause mortality or disease-specific mortality,

such as breast cancer or prostate cancer mortality.

(2) Outcomes such as cancer stage distribution (ie, whether there are more or fewer

early-stage cancers found) and length of survival after diagnosis can be misleading because oflead time and length time biases

(a) Lead time bias: If early treatment is not more effective than later treatment, the

duration of time the individual lives with the disease is longer, but the mortality rate isthe same (Figure 2-2)

Figure 2-2 Lead time bias (The total survival times for the unscreened patient and the screenedpatient in whom early treatment is not effective are the same The total survival time for the screenedpatient in whom early treatment is effective is lengthened.)

(b) Length time bias: Cancers that progress rapidly from onset to symptoms are less likely

to be detected by screening than slow-growing cancers, so that screening tends toidentify a group with a better prognosis

e Often, screening decisions are made based on less direct evidence, such as cohort or

case-control studies Given the biases inherent in these study designs, this is suboptimal and hasled to the institution of screening programs that provide no benefit

Where do you find information on screening guidelines?

Because of the complexity and rapid evolution of the evidence underlying screening

recommendations, most physicians rely on published guidelines to inform them about screening

decisions Guidelines are developed and updated by a variety of organizations It is important to befamiliar with different sources of guidelines and to understand how to access the most recent versions

of guidelines

A. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF)

1 Web site: http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/

2 An independent panel of experts in primary care and prevention, now under the aegis of the

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ)

3 Supported by outside experts, several evidence-based practice centers, and university centers

that help identify high-priority topics, produce systematic reviews, and draft guidelines

4 USPSTF guidelines often form the basis of clinical guidelines developed by professional

societies

5 Highly evidence-based recommendations on when and how to screen

B. The National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC)

1 Web site: http://www.guideline.gov/

2 A public resource for evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

3 Sponsored by the AHRQ and US Department of Health and Human Services

4 A way to access and compare a variety of guidelines, including those written by USPSTF,

professional societies, and other private organizations

a Specialty societies (eg, American College of Physicians [internal medicine], American

College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American College of Surgery)

b Subspecialty societies (eg, American Thoracic Society, American College of Rheumatology,

American Urologic Association, American College of Gastroenterology, American College

of Cardiology)

c Others (eg, American Cancer Society, American Diabetes Association, National

Osteoporosis Foundation, American Heart Association)

How do you interpret screening guidelines?

The USPSTF has developed a standardized system and vocabulary for evaluating the quality of theevidence addressing screening questions and for grading recommendations The recommendationgrade is based on a combination of the quality of the underlying evidence and an assessment of thesize of the benefit This general approach is often adopted by other organizations that make screeningrecommendations

A. USPSTF levels of certainty regarding net benefit

1 High: 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

2 Moderate: Evidence sufficient to determine the effects of the preventive service on health

outcomes, but methodologic issues such as limited generalizability, inconsistent findings, orinadequate size or number of studies exist; these conclusions could change based on future

studies

3 Low: 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

B. Grades of recommendations

1 Grade A: The USPSTF recommends this service There is high certainty that the net benefit is

substantial

2 Grade B: 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

3 Grade C: The USPSTF recommends selectively offering or providing this service to individual

patients based on professional judgment and patient preferences There is at least moderatecertainty that the net benefit is small

4 Grade D: 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

5 Grade I statement: 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

Mr S feels fine and has no medical history He takes no medications, does not smoke currently,and drinks occasionally However, he did smoke occasionally in college, and he estimates he

smoked a total of 2–3 packs of cigarettes over 4 years He exercises regularly by cycling 50–

100 miles/week His family history is notable for high cholesterol, hypertension, and a

cerebrovascular accident (CVA) in his father; his mother was diagnosed with colon cancer at

age 54 His physical exam shows a BP of 120/80 mm Hg and pulse of 56 bpm His body mass

index (BMI) is 22 kg/m2 HEENT, neck, cardiac, pulmonary, abdominal, and extremity examsare normal He refuses a rectal exam Mr S shows you a list of tests he wants done, derived

from research he has done on the Internet: lipid panel, prostate-specific antigen (PSA), chest

radiograph, and fecal occult blood test (FOBT) In addition, he shows you a letter from a

company offering “vascular screening” with ultrasounds of the carotids and aorta and wants toknow if he should have those tests done

Should Mr S be screened for prostate cancer with a PSA?

Prostate Cancer Screening

A. What is the burden of disease?

1 240,000 new diagnoses of prostate cancer in 2011, with approximately 34,000 deaths

2 Second leading cause of cancer death in men in the United States

3 Lifetime risk of a prostate cancer diagnosis is about 15.9%; the lifetime risk of death is about

2.8%; autopsy studies suggest that 70% of men over age 70 have occult prostate cancer that didnot impact their health status

B. Is it possible to identify a high-risk group that might especially benefit from screening?

1 Older age increases the likelihood of prostate cancer but decreases the likelihood of death from

prostate cancer (due to increased mortality from other causes)

a 200 cases/100,000 white men aged 50–59 compared with 900/100,000 men older than 70

years

b Mortality from untreated prostate cancer is 22–23% in men under the age of 71, 12% in men

between the ages of 71 and 81, and only 4% in men older than 81 years

2 African American race

a Higher prostate cancer incidence than white men: 217.5 vs 134.5 cases per 100,000

b Higher prostate cancer mortality than white men: 56.1 vs 23.4 deaths per 100,000

3 Family history: Relative risk of about 2 for men with a first-degree relative with prostate

cancer; relative risk about 5 if 2 first-degree relatives affected

C. What is the quality of the screening test?

1 Digital rectal exam (DRE)

a Sensitivity 59%

b Specificity unknown, but possibly as high as 94%; reproducibility poor

c Positive predictive value: 5–30%

d Neither sensitive nor specific enough to be used as a screening test, although may add to

cancer detection when combined with PSA

2 PSA

a For a PSA ≥ 4.0 ng/mL, sensitivity is 68–80%, specificity 60–70%.

b Positive predictive values (PPVs) vary with PSA level.

(1) For a PSA of 4–10 ng/mL, the PPV is about 25%.

(2) For a PSA > 10 ng/mL, the PPV is 42–64%.

c Prostate cancer is found in some men even with very low PSA levels.

(1) PSA ≤ 0.5 ng/mL: cancer in 6.6% of men, 12% of which was high grade

(2) PSA 0.6–1.0 ng/mL: cancer in 10%

(3) PSA 1.1–2.0 ng/mL: cancer in 17%

(4) PSA 2.1–3.0 ng/mL: cancer in 24%, 19% of which was high grade

d PSA velocity (rate of change in PSA), PSA density (PSA per volume of prostate tissue

measured on transrectal ultrasound or MRI), and free PSA (ratio of unbound to total PSA) arepurported to increase PSA accuracy, but data are insufficient to recommend their use

D. Does screening reduce morbidity or mortality?

1 Two large randomized controlled trials of PSA screening found lower grade cancers in the

screened group

2 The Prostate Lung Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) trial of 76,693 American men aged 55–74

years

a Annual PSA for 6 years and DRE for 4 years; 97% follow up at 7 years, 67% at 10 years

b 50% of control group screened outside of trial, biasing the results against a positive effect of

screening

c Increased frequency of diagnosis, but no difference in prostate cancer mortality

3 European trial of 182,000 men aged 50–74 years

a PSA every 4 years; median follow-up 9 years

b Relative risk of prostate cancer death in screened group = 0.8 (95% CI, 0.67–0.98); absolute

risk reduction = 0.7

c To prevent 1 prostate cancer death, 1410 patients would need to be screened and 48 cases

diagnosed

d In a separate analysis of just the Swedish patients in the trial, who were screened every 2

years, the relative risk of prostate cancer death was 0.56 (95% CI, 0.39–0.82), with an

absolute risk reduction of 0.4; the number needed to screen was 293 and to diagnose was 12

4 To compare benefits and risks of screening, consider 1000 men aged 55–69 screened with a

PSA every 1–4 years

a Prostate cancer will be diagnosed in 110.

b 100–120 will have at least 1 false-positive PSA requiring a biopsy.

c Erectile dysfunction due to treatment will develop in 29.

d Urinary incontinence due to treatment will develop in 18.

e 1 prostate cancer death will be avoided; without screening, 5 would die of prostate cancer;

with screening, 4 would die of prostate cancer

E. What are the current guidelines?

1 USPSTF (2012)

a Recommends against PSA screening for prostate cancer

b Grade D recommendation

2 American Cancer Society (2012)

a Asymptomatic men ≥ 50 years of age, with at least a 10-year life expectancy, should receive

information on the issues regarding prostate cancer screening and then participate in informeddecision making Prostate cancer screening should not be done without an informed decision-making process

b Men in higher risk groups should receive this information before age 50.

3 American College of Physicians (2012)

a Clinicians should inform men aged 50–69 years of the limited potential benefits and

substantial harm of prostate cancer screening, and screen only those men who express a clearpreference for screening

b Clinicians should not screen average risk men under the age of 50, men over the age of 69, or

men with a life expectancy of less than 10–15 years

c Talking points to be used in discussions with patients can be found in Qaseem A et al (2012).

F. Table 2-1 summarizes information on staging, testing, histology, prognosis, and treatment of

prostate cancer

Table 2-1 Prostate cancer.