Keywords
Diagnostic
Likelihood functions
Clinical reasoning
Education
Medical
How to Cite
Copyright © | All rights reserved.
The journal holds the exclusive copyright for the publication of this article under the terms of Brazilian law 9610/98.
Partial reproduction
The use of parts of the texts, figures and questionnaire of the article is free, being mandatory the citation of the authors and journal.
Total reproduction
It is expressly prohibited and must be authorized by the journal.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the knowledge of Internal Medicine residents at the Santa Casa de Misericórdia Foundation in Pará regarding the interpretation of diagnostic test efficacy and its application in probabilistic diagnostic reasoning. Methods: Questionnaires were administered to the residents to evaluate their self-perception of these concepts and their practical ability to interpret them in clinical reasoning. The questions covered theoretical definitions and their application in simulated cases, including the use of Fagan's Nomogram. Results: The findings indicated that while sensitivity and specificity are well understood and applied in daily practice, likelihood ratios and the use of Fagan's Nomogram are poorly mastered among residents. This gap highlights the need to improve education on probabilistic reasoning and the interpretation of diagnostic tests in medical training. Previous studies corroborate this challenge, showing that many healthcare professionals struggle to apply these concepts in complex clinical scenarios. Conclusion: The study concludes that incorporating advanced methods of diagnostic analysis and probabilistic tools into medical curricula can foster more accurate clinical reasoning, improving decision-making and consequently enhancing the quality and safety of patient care.
References
ARGIMON-PALLAS JM, et al. Effectiveness of a short-course in improving knowledge and skills on evidence-based practice. BMC Family Practice, 2011; 12(1): 64.
BERGUS G, et al. Appraising and applying evidence about a diagnostic test during a performance-based assessment. BMC Medical Education, 2004; 13;4(1):20.
BERWICK DM, et al. When doctors meet numbers. The American Journal of Medicine, 1981; 71(6): 991-8.
BORAK J, VEILLEUX S. Errors of intuitive logic among physicians. Social Science & Medicine, 1982; 16(22): 1939-43.
BOSSUYT PM, et al. STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ, 2015;351:h5527.
BRAMWELL R, et al. Health professionals’ and service users’ interpretation of screening test results: experimental study. BMJ, 2006; 333(7562): 284.
CASSCELLS W, et al. Interpretation by Physicians of Clinical Laboratory Results. New England Journal of Medicine. 1978; 299(18): 999-1001.
CHERNUSHKIN K, et al. Diagnostic Reasoning by Hospital Pharmacists: Assessment of Attitudes, Knowledge, and Skills. The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 2012; 65(4): 258-264.
ESTELLAT C, et al. French academic physicians had a poor knowledge of terms used in clinical epidemiology. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006; 59(9): 1009-1014.
HOFFRAGE U, et al. Communicating statistical information. Science, 2000; 290(5500): 2261-2.
HOFFRAGE U, GIGERENZER G. Using natural frequencies to improve diagnostic inferences. Academic Medicine, 1998; 73(5): 538–40.
LOPES B, et al. Biostatistics: fundamental conceptsandpracticalapplications. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia, 2014; 73(1): 16-22.
NETO JNA, SANTOS-NETO L. The Post Hoc Pitfall: Rethinking Sensitivity and Specificity in Clinical Practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2024; 39: 1506-1510.
NOGUCHI Y, et al. Quantitative evaluation of the diagnostic thinking process in medical students. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2002; 17(11): 848–53.
PACHECO DAC, et al. Desempenho das diretrizes AGA, Fukuoka e Europeia nos incidentalomas mucinosos do pâncreas submetidos à ultrassonografia endoscópica com punção por agulha fina. BioSCIENCE, 2024;82(e):e004.
REID MC, et al. Academic Calculations versus Clinical Judgments: Practicing Physicians’ Use of Quantitative Measures of Test Accuracy. The American Journal of Medicine, 1998; 104(4): 374-80.
SASSI F, MCKEE M. Do Clinicians Always Maximize Patient Outcomes? A Conjoint Analysis of Preferences for Carotid Artery Testing. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy. 2008; 13(2): 61-6.
SOX CM, et al. The influence of types of decision support on physicians’ decision making. Archives of Disease in Childhood. 2009; 94(3): 185–90.
STEURER J, et al. Communicating accuracy of tests to general practitioners: a controlled study. BMJ. 2002; 324(7341): 824-6.
VERMEERSCH P, BOSSUYT X. Comparative Analysis of Different Approaches to Report Diagnostic Accuracy. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2010; 170(8): 734-5.
WEATHERALL M. Information provided by diagnostic and screening tests: improving probabilities. Postgraduate Medical Journal, 2018; 94(1110): 230-5.
WHITING PF, et al. How well do health professionals interpret diagnostic information? A systematic review. BMJ Open, 2015; 5(7): e008155.
YOUNG JM. General practitioners’ self ratings of skills in evidence based medicine: validation study. BMJ, 2002; 324(7343): 950-1.