Cited by 250Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMedicine, History, and PhilosophyClinical practice guidelines implementation

The science of clinical practice: disease diagnosis or patient prognosis? Evidence about “what is likely to happen” should shape clinical practice

Open access
Croft, Peter, Altman, Douglas G, Deeks, Jonathan J, Dunn, Kate M, Hay, Alastair D, Hemingway, Harry, LeResche, Linda, Peat, George +9 more·2015·BMC Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis is the traditional basis for decision-making in clinical practice. Evidence is often lacking about future benefits and harms of these decisions for patients diagnosed with and without disease. We propose that a model of clinical practice focused on patient prognosis and predicting the likelihood of future outcomes may be more useful. DISCUSSION: Disease diagnosis can provide crucial information for clinical decisions that influence outcome in serious acute illness. However, the central role of diagnosis in clinical practice is challenged by evidence that it does not always benefit patients and that factors other than disease are important in determining patient outcome. The concept of disease as a dichotomous 'yes' or 'no' is challenged by the frequent use of diagnostic indicators with continuous distributions, such as blood sugar, which are better understood as contributing information about the probability of a patient's future outcome. Moreover, many illnesses, such as chronic fatigue, cannot usefully be labelled from a disease-diagnosis perspective. In such cases, a prognostic model provides an alternative framework for clinical practice that extends beyond disease and diagnosis and incorporates a wide range of information to predict future patient outcomes and to guide decisions to improve them. Such information embraces non-disease factors and genetic and other biomarkers which influence outcome. SUMMARY: Patient prognosis can provide the framework for modern clinical practice to integrate information from the expanding biological, social, and clinical database for more effective and efficient care.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12916-014-0265-4

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 250

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [10]Rosenberg Charles E Rosenberg CE Golden J Introduction Framing disease 1992 New Brunswick, New Jersey Rutgers University Press

Authors
Croft, P., Altman, D. G., Deeks, J. J., Dunn, K. M., Hay, A. D., Hemingway, H., LeResche, L., Peat, G., Perel, P., Petersen, S. E., Riley, R. D., Roberts, I., Sharpe, M., Stevens, R. J., Van Der Windt, D. A., Von Korff, M., & Timmis, A.
Affiliations
  • Arthritis Research UK (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Keele University (GB)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • Farr Institute (GB)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
Croft, Peter
Venue
BMC Medicine
Published
2015-01-30
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
20-20
ISSN
1741-7015 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2053670448
Cited by
250
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8
FWCI
22.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMC Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSHTM Research Online (London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • Keele Research Repository (Keele University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (MR/K006584/1)
  • Wellcome Trust (MR/K006584/1, 086091, 083572, 086091/Z/08/Z)
  • Cancer Research UK (16895)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0509-10183, RP-PG-0407-10314, NIHR-RP-02-12-012)
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Versus Arthritis
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K006584/1, K006584/1, G0902393)
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
  • Economic and Social Research Council
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG034181)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
diagnosis, patient prognosis, prognostic model, clinical decision-making, blood glucose, chronic fatigue, biomarkers, evidence-based medicine
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Diagnosis, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Professional Practice, Prognosis

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review