Philosophy of science and the diagnostic process

Family Practice

Volumn 30, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 501-505

  Willis, Brian H ^a   Beebee, Helen ^b   Lasserson, Daniel S ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Diagnostic tests (e.g. ultrasound); Doctor patient relationship; Medical errors patient safety; Philosophy; Primary care; Risk assessment; Science

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; DIAGNOSTIC REASONING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; GENERAL PRACTICE; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; PATIENT SAFETY; PHILOSOPHY; PHYSICIAN;

DIAGNOSTIC TESTS (E.G. ULTRASOUND); DOCTOR-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP; MEDICAL ERRORS/PATIENT SAFETY; PHILOSOPHY; PRIMARY CARE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCIENCE.;

BAYES THEOREM; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; HUMANS; LOGIC; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; SCIENCE;

EID: 84884728914     PISSN: 02632136     EISSN: 14602229     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmt031     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Berghmans R, Schouten HC. Sir Karl Popper, swans, and the general practitioner. BMJ 2011; 343: d5469.
2. Hart M, Moots RJ. Behcet's syndrome. BMJ 2009; 339: b3876.
3. Kostopoulou O, Devereaux-Walsh C, Delaney BC. Missing celiac disease in family medicine: the importance of hypothesis generation. Med Decis Making 2009; 29: 282-90.
4. Ladyman J. Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 18-22.
5. Bortolotti L. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Polity, 2008, pp. 32-6.
6. Horner C, Westacott E. Thinking Through Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP, 2000, pp. 108.
7. Russell B. The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: OUP, 2001, pp. 33-38.
8. Ladyman J. Understanding Philosophy of Science. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 56-58.
9. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 3-10.
10. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 17-20.
11. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 22-6.
12. Popper K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge, 2002, pp. 276-81.
13. Gillies D. Philosophy of Science in the Twentieth Century. Oxford: Blackwell, 1993, pp. 98-116.
14. Bortolotti L. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Polity, 2008, p. 53.
15. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edn. London: University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp. 75-91.
16. Kuhn TS. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd edn. London: University of Chicago Press, 1996, pp. 111-35.
17. Thompson MJ, Ninis N, Perera R et al. Clinical recognition of meningococcal disease in children and adolescents. Lancet 2006; 367: 397-403.
18. Rees G (ed.). The Oxford Francis Bacon Volume XI. The Instauratio Magna Part II: Novum Organum and Associated Texts. Oxford: OUP, 2004, pp. 319-38.
19. Bortolotti L. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Polity, 2008, p. 35.
20. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane, 2011, pp. 109-99.
21. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 1974; 185: 1124-31.
22. Kahneman D. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Allen Lane, 2011, pp. 20-1.
23. Gill CJ, Sabin L, Schmid CH. Why clinicians are natural Bayesians. BMJ 2005; 330: 1080-3.
24. Willis BH. Spectrum bias-why clinicians need to be cautious when applying diagnostic test studies. Fam Pract 2008; 25: 390-6.
25. Irwig L, Bossuyt P, Glasziou P, Gatsonis C, Lijmer J. Designing studies to ensure that estimates of test accuracy are transferable. BMJ 2002; 324: 669-71.
26. Welch E. Squash and a squeeze. United Kingdom Casebook. Vol. 20. London, UK: Medical Protection Society, 2012, p. 18. ISSN 1366 4409. www.mps.org.uk (accessed April 2013).
27. Maffulli N. The clinical diagnosis of subcutaneous tear of the Achilles tendon. A prospective study in 174 patients. Am J Sports Med 1998; 26: 266-70.
28. Okasha S. Philosophy of Science: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: OUP, 2002, p. 12.
29. Lewis SL. Think it possible you may be mistaken (letter). BMJ 2011; 343: d7701.