Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Personal view
Stop hunting for zebras in Texas: end the diagnostic culture of “rule-out”
  1. Saurabh Jha
  1. Correspondence to Saurabh Jha, assistant professor of radiology, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; saurabh.jha{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

“The patient's skull was struck by a baseball bat. He has a perfectly legitimate reason for subarachnoid hemorrhage. He already had a CT [computed tomogram] of the head showing the bleed in good detail. Why another?” I remonstrated with Watson, the neurosurgeon.

“But you don't know that there is no intracranial aneurysm. You can't rule that out. He needs a CT angiogram of the brain immediately,” protested Watson.

Hit by a hard object (cause) and blood in brain (effect) is deductive reasoning at its simplest. But Watson was correct: I could not rule out cerebral artery aneurysm without a CT angiogram. I could not, for that matter, rule out bleeding brain metastases from lung cancer. Perhaps the patient needed a CT of the chest, I suggested facetiously.

The diagnostic permutations in medicine are innumerable, and what prevents doctors from descending into parody is the application of conditional probability: Bayes' theorem. Without clinical context we stare into the abyss.

The likelihood that someone with cerebral aneurysm hit by a bat develops subarachnoid hemorrhage (near certainty) is not the same as the likelihood that someone who develops subarachnoid hemorrhage after high impact trauma has an aneurysm, hitherto undisclosed …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.