How reliable is your diagnosis?

Abstract

The effectiveness and justification of every therapy and other clinical decisions is based on a correct diagnosis. However, many types of test results can contain uncertainties that may lead to clinically incorrect decisions. The same applies to the reliability of expert opinions for legal disputes. Adequate communication of diagnostic and expert uncertainties in the examination report or expert opinion is therefore crucial for avoiding incorrect decisions. The liability of the person providing the service is also affected. However, uncertain or even erroneous findings can have various causes, only some of which are known to the examining or commissioning person. This article provides an overview of 3 different types of susceptibility to errors using the example of pathological biopsy and cytology examinations, which can also be transferred to other veterinary disciplines in a similar way. A solid understanding of the possible sources of error as well as adequate communication and discussion of case-specific, limited probabilities in investigation reports and expert opinions make a significant contribution to avoiding incorrect decisions. However, commonly used terms such as "highly probable", "suspected" or "cannot be ruled out" are sometimes interpreted in unclear or divergent ways, which are explained here with recommendations for uniform use. This is intended to enable the person making the decision, if necessary, to initiate further diagnostic tests or gather further evidence in the context of all other available data in order to reduce the risk of error as far as possible.

Keywords

Causes of errors - uncertainty - communication - liability - forensics - probability

Publication History

Article published online:
24 October 2024

• Literatur

• 1 Kahneman D, Sibony O, Sunstein CR, Schmidt T. Noise: Was unsere Entscheidungen verzerrt – und wie wir sie verbessern können. Pantheon-Verlag; 2023
• 2 Herman EJ, Stern AW, Fox RJ, Dark MJ. Understanding the efficiency of splenic hemangiosarcoma diagnosis using monte carlo simulations. Vet Pathol 2019; 56: 856-859
• 3 Yang C, Humphrey PA. False-negative histopathologic diagnosis of prostatic adenocarcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2020; 144: 326-334
• 4 Köhler H, Kraft H. Gerichtliche Veterinärmedizin. Enke-Verlag; 1984
• 5 Eikmeier H, Fellmer E, Moegle H. Lehrbuch der Gerichtlichen Tierheilkunde. Paul Parey-Verlag; 1990
• 6 Steidl T, Buyle T, Bostedt H, Wehrend A. Rechtssicherheit in der Tierarztpraxis - Gerichtliche Veterinärmedizin für den Praxisalltag. Thieme-Verlag; 2020
• 7 Köller N, Nissen K, Rieß M, Sadorf E. Probabilistische Schlussfolgerungen in Schriftgutachten. Luchterhand-Fachverlag; 2004
• 8 Baumgärtner W, Gruber A. Allgemeine Pathologie für die Tiermedizin. 3. Auflage. Thieme-Verlag; 2020
• 9 Forster B. Praxis der Rechtsmedizin für Mediziner und Juristen. Thieme-Verlag; 1986
• 10 https://www.colliseum.eu/wiki/Wahrscheinlichkeit letztes Abrufdatum 21.05.2024
• 11 Trück T. Münchener Kommentar zur StPO, 2. Aufl. 2023, § 72, Rn. 2. C.H.Beck-Verlag, 2023, sowie BGH, Urt. v. 7.6.1956 – 3 StR 136/56.
• 12 BGH, Beschl. v. 25.5.2011 – 2 StR 585/10.
• 13 Czerwik A, Schmidt MJ, Olszewska A, Hinz S, Büttner K, Farke D. Reliability and interobserver variability of a grading system of ventricular distension in dogs. Front Vet Sci 2023; 10: 1271545
• 14 Bertram CA, Gurtner C, Dettwiler M, Kershaw O, Dietert K, Pieper L, Pischon H, Gruber AD, Klopfleisch R. Validation of digital microscopy compared with light microscopy for the diagnosis of canine cutaneous tumors. Vet Pathol 2018; 55: 490-500
• 15 Kamstock DA, Ehrhart EJ, Getzy DM, Bacon NJ, Rassnick KM, Moroff SD, Liu SM, Straw RC, McKnight CA, Amorim RL, Bienzle D, Cassali GD, Cullen JM, Dennis MM, Esplin DG, Foster RA, Goldschmidt MH, Gruber AD, Hellmén E, Howerth EW, Labelle P, Lenz SD, Lipscomb TP, Locke E, McGill LD, Miller MA, Mouser PJ, O'Toole D, Pool RR, Powers BE, Ramos-Vara JA, Roccabianca P, Ross AD, Sailasuta A, Sarli G, Scase TJ, Schulman FY, Shoieb AM, Singh K, Sledge D, Smedley RC, Smith KC, Spangler WL, Steficek B, Stromberg PC, Valli VE, Yager J, Kiupel M. Recommended guidelines for submission, trimming, margin evaluation, and reporting of tumor biopsy specimens in veterinary surgical pathology. Vet Pathol 2011; 48: 19-31
• 16 Day MJ, Bilzer T, Mansell J, Wilcock B, Hall EJ, Jergens A, Minami T, Willard M, Washabau R. Histopathological standards for the diagnosis of gastrointestinal inflammation in endoscopic biopsy samples from the dog and cat: a report from the World Small Animal Veterinary Association Gastrointestinal Standardization Group. J Comp Pathol 2008; 138: S1-S43
• 17 Washabau RJ, Day MJ, Willard MD, Hall EJ, Jergens AE, Mansell J, Minami T, Bilzer TW. Endoscopic, biopsy, and histopathologic guidelines for the evaluation of gastrointestinal inflammation in companion animals. WSAVA International Gastrointestinal Standardization Group. J Vet Intern Med 2010; 24: 10-26