PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9420387

A case for diagnoses.

J D Bader·D A Shugars
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

It is common practice to record treatment rendered, but not the diagnostic basis for these treatment decisions. This practice appears to undervalue diagnosis, as well as hamper feedback to practitioners and the profession about the effectiveness of treatments relative to specific diagnoses. It also leaves dentists open to liability for litigation and impedes research. A case is made that dentistry should follow medicine in exploring the use of standardized computer-codable diagnoses as part of record keeping. A two-step process is suggested to promote initial acceptance.

Explore related subjects

Decision MakingDental CareDental RecordsDiagnosis, OralFeedbackForms and Records ControlHumansLiability, LegalMedical Records Systems, ComputerizedPatient Care PlanningQuality of Health CareResearchRisk ManagementUtilization ReviewJournal ArticleResearch Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J D Bader, D A Shugars. 1997. A case for diagnoses.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9420387/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Defining patient-based minimal clinically important effect sizes: a study in palliative radiotherapy for painful unresectable pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To measure patient-based minimal clinically important effect sizes (minimal incremental benefit that an individual would require to accept one treatment option over another) for pain relief between two contrasting palliative radiotherapy regimens for painful pelvic recurrences from rectal cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-three patients with a history of cancer pain without prior pelvic radiotherapy participated in decision aid-facilitated trade-off exercises. The clinical scenario and treatment options of a 5-day vs. a 20-day course of radiotherapy were described. The duration of pain relief for the 20-day regimen was increased until the respondents' preferences switched to the 20-day regimen. The exercises were repeated for different probabilities of benefit and pain intensity at the time of decision making. RESULTS: When the probability of pain relief was unchanged, the median switch point for the duration of pain relief was 6.7 and 7.2 months for severe and mild pain, respectively. The cumulative percentage frequency curve for the switch points approximated a sigmoid distribution. CONCLUSION: Determining the minimal clinically important effect sizes for symptom relief for palliative therapies is feasible. This type of information can be used to incorporate patient values into clinical trial designs. Modification of this method can be used to improve our understanding of shared (physician and patient) decision making.

Decision Making↗