You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Editorial
The diagnostic dartboard: is the bullseye a correct pathoanatomical diagnosis or to guide treatment?
  1. S I Docking1,2,
  2. J Cook1,2,
  3. E Rio1,2
  1. 1 La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Australian Centre for Research into Injury in Sports and Its Prevention, Federation University, Australia
  1. Correspondence to S I Docking, La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia; sean.docking{at}monash.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2015-095484

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    It is a very human trait to try and rationalise our complicated world by placing things into distinct groups. There are countless examples where this is the case; good and evil, believers and non-believers, the politically left and right. While it aids our decision-making process, there are some negatives in classifying the world in this way, especially in sports medicine.

    Diagnosis of conditions/diseases in patients is the cornerstone of clinical sports medicine. Every clinician aims to take an extensive history and perform clinical tests to accurately diagnose the condition, and then to prescribe the most appropriate intervention. A number of publications have quantified the accuracy (number of correct diagnoses, both negative and positive for the condition, divided by the total number of participants), sensitivity (number of positive diagnoses correctly identified divided by the total number of positive participants) and specificity (number of negative diagnoses correctly identified divided by the total number of negative participants) of various clinical tests in a multitude of conditions. However, the majority of these studies need to be viewed with caution due to a number of methodological issues.

    Limitations of current dogma relating to test accuracy

    To …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Twitter Follow Sean Docking at @SIDocking and Ebonie Rio at @tendonpain

    • Contributors SID, ER and JC contributed to the development and preparation of this editorial.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Obtained.

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

    Linked Articles