Startseite Medizin The scientific nature of diagnosis
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

The scientific nature of diagnosis

  • Bimal Jain EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 13. Januar 2017
Diagnosis
Aus der Zeitschrift Diagnosis Band 4 Heft 1

Abstract

The method of diagnosis is essentially similar to the scientific method in which a cause is suspected from clues in a situation and formulated as a hypothesis that is proven correct by the observation of its consequences. An awareness of scientific nature of diagnosis emphasizes search for clues rather than evidence for a disease when we encounter a patient with symptoms.

  1. Author contributions: The author has accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: None declared.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Whitehead AN. Science and the modern world. New York: Free Press, 1997.Suche in Google Scholar

2. Feynman RP Mr. Feynman goes to Washington: investigating the space shuttle Challenger disaster, what do you care what other people think. Leighton R, editor. New York: WW Norton & Co., 2001:113–238.Suche in Google Scholar

3. Jain B. An investigation into method of diagnosis in clinicopathologic Conferences (CPCs). Diagnosis 2016;3:61–4.10.1515/dx-2015-0034Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Singh H, Giardina TD, Meyer AN, Forjuoh SN, Reis MD, Thomas EJ. Types and origins of diagnostic errors in primary care settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:418–25.10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.2777Suche in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

5. Ely LW, Kaldjian LC, D’Alessandro DM. Diagnostic errors in primary care: lessons learned. J Am Board Fam Med 2012;25:85–97.10.3122/jabfm.2012.01.110174Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

6. Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med 2003;78:775–80.10.1097/00001888-200308000-00003Suche in Google Scholar PubMed

7. Popper K. Conjectures and refutations: the growth of scientific knowledge (Routledge Classics), 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2002.Suche in Google Scholar

8. Graham DW. Heraclitus. In: Zalta EN, editor. The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy ed., Fall 2015 edition. Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2015/entries/heraclitus/.Suche in Google Scholar

Received: 2016-8-19
Accepted: 2016-11-1
Published Online: 2017-1-13
Published in Print: 2017-3-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Heruntergeladen am 8.1.2026 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/dx-2016-0032/pdf?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen