PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Mark Graber

Publications and source records attributed to Mark Graber.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Systematic review of rosacea treatments.

BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common chronic skin and ocular condition. It is unclear which treatments are most effective. We have conducted a Cochrane review of rosacea therapies. This article is a distillation of that work. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of rosacea therapies. METHODS: Multiple databases were systematically searched. Randomized controlled trials in people with moderate to severe rosacea were included. Study selection, assessment of methodologic quality, data extraction, and analysis were carried out by two independent researchers. RESULTS: In all, 29 studies met inclusion criteria. Topical metronidazole is more effective than placebo (odds ratio 5.96, 95% confidence interval 2.95-12.06). Azelaic acid is more effective than placebo (odds ratio 2.45, 95% confidence interval 1.82-3.28). Firm conclusions could not be drawn about other therapies. LIMITATIONS: The quality of the studies was generally poor. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that topical metronidazole and azelaic acid are effective. There is some evidence that oral metronidazole and tetracycline are effective. More well-designed, randomized controlled trials are required to provide better evidence of the efficacy and safety of other rosacea therapies.

Administration, Cutaneous↗
PubMed2005

Diagnostic errors in medicine: a case of neglect.

BACKGROUND: Medical diagnoses that are wrong, missed, or delayed make up a large fraction of all medical errors and cause substantial suffering and injury. Compared with other types of medical error, however, diagnostic errors receive little attention-a major factor in perpetuating unacceptable rates of diagnostic error. Diagnostic errors are fundamentally obscure, health care organizations have not viewed them as a system problem, and physicians responsible for making medical decisions seldom perceive their own error rates as problematic. The safety of modem health care can be improved if these three issues are understood and addressed. SOLUTIONS: Opportunities to improve the visibility of diagnostic errors are evident. Diagnostic error needs to be included in the normal spectrum of quality assurance surveillance and review. The system properties that contribute to diagnostic errors need to be systematically identified and addressed, including issues related to reliable diagnostic testing processes. Even for cases entirely dependent on the skill of the clinician for accurate diagnosis, health care organizations could minimize errors by using system-level interventions to aid the clinician, such as second readings of key diagnostic tests and providing resources for clinical decision support. Physicians need to improve their calibration by getting feedback on the diagnoses they make. Finally, clinicians need to learn about overconfidence and other innate cognitive tendencies that detract from optimal reasoning and learning. CONCLUSION: Clinicians and their health care organizations need to take active steps to discover, analyze, and prevent diagnostic errors.

Diagnostic Errors↗
PubMed2003

Metacognitive training to reduce diagnostic errors: ready for prime time?

The accuracy of medical diagnosis is often degraded when diagnosis deviates from the principles of normative decision making. Although diagnostic errors can potentially be reduced by metacognitive training, that proposal (put forth by Croskerry in an accompanying article) needs validation and extensive exploration.

Cognition↗
PubMed2002

Reducing diagnostic errors in medicine: what's the goal?

This review considers the feasibility of reducing or eliminating the three major categories of diagnostic errors in medicine: "No-fault errors" occur when the disease is silent, presents atypically, or mimics something more common. These errors will inevitably decline as medical science advances, new syndromes are identified, and diseases can be detected more accurately or at earlier stages. These errors can never be eradicated, unfortunately, because new diseases emerge, tests are never perfect, patients are sometimes noncompliant, and physicians will inevitably, at times, choose the most likely diagnosis over the correct one, illustrating the concept of necessary fallibility and the probabilistic nature of choosing a diagnosis. "System errors" play a role when diagnosis is delayed or missed because of latent imperfections in the health care system. These errors can be reduced by system improvements, but can never be eliminated because these improvements lag behind and degrade over time, and each new fix creates the opportunity for novel errors. Tradeoffs also guarantee system errors will persist, when resources are just shifted. "Cognitive errors" reflect misdiagnosis from faulty data collection or interpretation, flawed reasoning, or incomplete knowledge. The limitations of human processing and the inherent biases in using heuristics guarantee that these errors will persist. Opportunities exist, however, for improving the cognitive aspect of diagnosis by adopting system-level changes (e.g., second opinions, decision-support systems, enhanced access to specialists) and by training designed to improve cognition or cognitive awareness. Diagnostic error can be substantially reduced, but never eradicated.

Cognition↗