Talk:Medical diagnosis

electronic diagnosis
i am searching for software or websites to help diagnosis via computers. That is, a place where doctors can search for symptoms and find rare related diseases, and discuss medicine cases.

o open based repository for medicine information. does anyone knows one? --Alexandre Van de Sande 17:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

list of diagnostic software support systems
(response to the earlier request - feel free to add then move to the main article if warranted)

mycin (and emycin/tmycin) originally from Stanford The mycin page is pretty good, and points to other systems using different dxplain (mass general hospital) I believe this one suggests additional tests to aid in differential diagnosis.

...

Wikip rhyre (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Diagnosis and Assessment
Could anyone suggest whether or how this article should address the issue of 'categorical diagnosis' versus alternative continuum or dimensional approaches? This is a particular issue in regard to mental health diagnoses but is it generally? And how should it be discussed in this article?

Also should the article put medical diagnosis into the context of being one approach to diagnosis or health assessment, and should it address others? I'm personally thinking again mainly in regard to mental health/functioning, and for example the practice of biopsychosocial assessment or formulation (which could be more fully addressed on another page, but not sure what it could be called). It seems that this is diagnosis in the broad sense of the identification of abnormal states associated with functional problems.

I would also comment that the history section appears focused on the genetic and chemical factors involved in diagnosis and etiology, and does not seem to equally include environmental factors and causes. Is this an accurate reflection? Anyone know if this section is based on a particular source?

I agree with two points made above: physical health states can also lie on continuums, and I think this article needs to be broadened in a careful and systematic way to include all three dimensions of health. All three dimensions of health (physical, mental and social) can explain an individual's undifferentiated symptoms and signs, until sufficient investigation has been undertaken to narrow down the differential diagnosis. The world currently seems burdened by a dysfunctional split between the so-called "medical" and "mental health" dimensions. Words like "medical", "wellness" and "holistic" have been so politicized that I think they have lost meaning. I note that "psychologist" is not included in the list of those doing diagnosis of undifferentiated symptoms and signs, and I think this is an important oversight. Primary care physicians (my world) have been used to thinking about diagnosis in biopsychosocial terms for decades, particularly in the UK, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand (I am less familiar with other nations), although often there is little they can do about psychosocial diagnoses owing to resource and referral limitations. Diagnosis can include states of normal and wellness, in addition to illness and infirmity. I think it is time to start mending these artificial splits in thinking about diagnosing undifferentiated symptoms, so that patients/clients get the full benefit of biopsychosocial approaches to diagnosis, by a collaborative team when necessary. I have been pondering these issues for many years and will be coming back to contribute as best I can to this article. Maybe the title should be changed from "medical diagnosis" to "health diagnosis"?Thinkingabout (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Definitions
Cut from intro:


 * The first definition was preeminent before scientific thought changed to reflect a better understanding of diseases and their causes. Later, as causalities were defined through scientific method, the second definition became more noteworthy.

Often no distinction is made between (1) identification of a constellation of symptoms as a "syndrome" (especially in psychiatry) and (2) identifying the causes of the disease which displays these symptoms.

Two cases in point are Anorexia nervosa and Asperger's syndrome. With Anoroxia, the patient refuses to maintain body weight and fears appearing fat. But what "causes" this refusal? Why is she fearful?

With Asperger's, there is anti-social, self-centered behavior: the presence of these symptoms defines the syndrome. It is thought to be heriditary, or is described as a neurobiological disorder, but nobody knows what causes the syndrome.

Our definition of a diagnosis should distinguish clearly in every case between (1) "Hmm, we've seen this kind of thing many times before" and (2) "Well, this is almost certainly caused by X."

Anyone can say that you've got a fever, or clammy hands, or chest pains. But the kind of diagnoses the patient wants is what is making him sick, so he can be cured. --Uncle Ed 21:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Clinical diagnosis
Should clinical diagnosis redirect here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments
Someone (sometime back) put a couple of paragraphs into "hidden text" mode. A typo by an anon today further confused things. I've restored the text to visibility, but left the original editor's complaint about the text there (invisible). Anyone who has an idea about how to address that concern, please feel free. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The second paragraph under Diagnosis in medical practice seems to be rather cynical of psychology without any citation except "(BDG, 2006)" and without any real explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.161.101.128 (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

External Link
Hello, I would like to add a link to DiagnosisPro - Free Online Medical Diagnosis Tool under Diagnosis. Previously posted link was removed as DiagnosisPro was misrepresented and I would like a second chance (more info).

Keep in mind that since April 2008, we are offering DiagnosisPro free of any charges. We believe that DiagnosisPro is an extremely practical and useful tool for clinicians and we would like to make it available to as many physicians as possible.

Any comment would be appreciated.

Thanks, --75.56.197.224 (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Added link as no one objected. Thanks, --75.56.197.224 (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, under the conflict of interest rules, you can't add your own website. Mere absence of objection for three and a half days isn't enough; you need to find someone who thinks it's important enough for this article that they are willing to spend ten seconds adding it for you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, I'm using this website a lot since I found the link while searching Diagnosis on Wiki SE. I think link should be added to the article as this is a wonderful solution to get a quick Diagnosis. BTW, I think you've got it wrong on your talk page as this is not open wiki project. --67.49.37.149 (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have no conflict of interest, and you want to see it included, then you can do that. I don't see its value for this article -- it doesn't really tell you anything about the concept of a diagnosis -- so I won't add it myself, and the people who run the site can't (legitimately) add it because of their conflict of interest, but anyone else can (just like any other editor is welcome to delete links which they believe are inappropriate).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Got bit confused while reading your statement above and edit history for Diagnosis. You removed most of the external links with the exceptions of two links that doesn't really tell you anything about the concept of a diagnosis. Anyway, I have no conflict of interest and I do think this link should be added to the article as this is a great solution for Diagnosis, however, without your approval it would be a waste of time as it's probably going to be removed. --67.49.37.149 (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Merck Manual is one of the most famous diagnostic aides, and is well-known even to nonmedical people. The other external link gives an explanation of psychiatric diagnosis, but I wouldn't be troubled if it were removed as it is of considerably lower quality. Antelan talk  13:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, I had similar concerns about the quality of the psych link, but all appearances to the contrary, I'm not really opposed to including links. You can, of course, delete it if you want.
 * 67.49.37.149, If you don't choose to add the link, then that's your choice. Perhaps the site owner will find someone who is willing to make a different choice.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * My point in delving into the external links that you "let live" was that at least both were on topic, and one (Merck) is absolutely germane. I basically meant this as an endorsement of your culling of the lesser links. I would have removed the psych link, but I guess I feel that on balance, it's not promotional and having it there is better than not. Antelan talk  22:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Antelan, that was my point exactly. I'm not stating that any of the existing external links are bad or wrong, just doesn't really tell you anything about the concept of a diagnosis. --67.49.37.149 (talk) 16:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page request
This page "hides" the page Diagnosis (artificial intelligence) in searches, which makes very difficult to access the latter. Is a disambiguation page pertinent in this situation ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.93.5.246 (talk) 14:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so. There is also taxonomic diagnosis. Stand by... --Una Smith (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move. JPG-GR (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I see that this article was recently moved to a new name, focusing on medical diagnosis. That being the case, I cleaned out the non-germane material from the opening section and reorganized the remainder. I think it would be even better to call it Medical diagnosis -- but that is currently a redirect page, so the move won't be approved without some indication of support. Hence this talk section. Cgingold (talk) 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose. To me (I am not a doctor), "medical diagnosis" seems to refer specifically (and only) to the count noun, what the article calls "a diagnosis". "Diagnosis (medical)" seems to refer most naturally to the mass noun, the process of diagnosis, but could also be taken to refer to a diagnosis (of the medical variety). Since this article is about the process of diagnosis, I think the current title is more appropriate. Inertia, and the ease of pipelinking  versus , also disadvantage the proposed move. --Quuxplusone (talk) 05:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand the first point you're trying to make, but I think that both formulations can be seen as referring to both senses of the word -- I'd say they're equivalent in that regard. I'm not quite getting the other point, though -- but it seems distinctly secondary, in any event. There's also something else to consider: I just discovered that we already have, which I was thinking of creating myself. So the article would then be consistent with the name of the category, as well. Cgingold (talk) 12:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As I have argued elsewhere on this page (I am still learning the Wikipedia world), I think the heading should be "health diagnosis" not "medical diagnosis". See elsewhere on this discussion page for my rationale.Thinkingabout (talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Edits of 19 September
The edits I made on 19 September removed gender bias, added inline citations, addressed concerns of poorly written language, removed unecessary links, explained more accurately the diagnostic process and included a general term fr the diagnostician as several disciplines diagnose. So, if there is an issue with these edits discuss them here in detail. Do not wholesale revert.


 * actually, several people seem to have noticed that what you really did is remove any reference to the word doctor or physician from the entire article. Thats sort of like removing the word physical therapist from an article in physiotherapy. Nice try though.Fuzbaby (talk) 01:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What several people to whom you refer? Only one other editor attempted to make edits similar to yours. This editor has been warned many times for vandalism and blocked for vandalism as well. Your point assumes "Medical diagnosis" is a diagnosis by a medical doctor. Medical Diagnosis is also a diagnosis of a medical condition which does not specify who makes the diagnosis. The latter reflects how health care is practiced everyday. The former is an attempt to mislead. Diagnosis of a medical condition is performed by many disciplines such as: psychologists, dentists, NPs, ODs, PAs, PTs, and DCs. the article was changed in part to reflect the fact many disciplines diagnose medical conditions. You are essentially trying the same POV reverts as you did to the Doctor Title page. The community rejected your arguments to the Doctor Title page. Your arguments do not apply here as well. Your only issue seems to be with the title doctor yet you wholesale reverted many of the edits to the article. Your actions constitute vadalism. Do not wholesale revert.DoctorDW (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, you've only edited several pages on my watchlist, and been warned on several pages about your attempt to remove links to physicians and medicine and your efforts to try to mislead the public and perhaps your patients into believing physiotherapists are physicians. Your comments in the article and above indicate a lay understanding of the topic, perhaps additional education on your part about the topic, and wikipedia policy, such as vandalism, npov, edit warring, etc. while you are at it, would be warranted. Fuzbaby (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comments are inaccurate and meritless. Numerous editors have rejected your attempts to exclusively restrict articles to physicians.DoctorDW (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the article may benifit from some definitions. I think Fuzbaby is refering to the technical definition in the medical field, and the legal definition, while DoctorDW is refering to the everyday concept that anyone can "diagnose" anything, be it a physician, a nurse, a chiropracter, or a patient on the internet. I personally believe a wikipedia article should be more focused on the former than the latter, otherwise its would be opinionpedia. DoctorDW, if your edits are in good faith, then may I ask why you seem to be trying to only reference diagnosis in a way that excludes the more traditional, and technically correct definition? I am going to assume good faith and think that it was only an error of omission on your part. Allgoodnamesalreadytaken (talk)


 * As for the issue of technical definition and legal defintition several disciplines diagnose medical conditions as part of their scope of legal practice. My edits are inclusive of all practitioners who legally diagnose medical conditions. Only a small portion of my edits have to do with who is a diagnostition. Fuzbaby apprarently is too lazy to revert only the content he has issue with and has reverted all good faith edits. That is sloppy at best and vandalism at worst. Allgoodnamestaken would some references help you?DoctorDW (talk) 17:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Only those with a license to practice medicine "legally" diagnose disease. This is exclusive to physicians and physician assistants when practicing under a physician license. Looking at the edit history, it looks like Fuzbaby actually combined several edits rather than reverting, its just that your additions were left out. None of this is considered vandalism. Also, please read wikipedia policy on personal attacks, and remember that you shouldn't contribue to wikipedia if you aren't willing to have others look through, edit, praise, delete, or compeletly rip to pieces anything you add. ChillyMD (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Legally" all of the professions I previously listed diagnose medical conditions. The article should reflect the full scope of diagnosis in medicine. Artificially limiting it to one profession is misleading and inaccurate. You made the same type of arguements on the Doctor (title) article and the community rejected your edits and those of Fuzbaby. Given the timing of your edits to this article it raises the question of sock puppetry.DoctorDW (talk) 17:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "Legally" they are not, and if you had a license to practice medicine you would know that. For your second comment, I believe you are referring to webhamster, who in no uncertain terms told you to shove your accusations and biased editing where the sun doesn't shine. Going back and looking, that was after 7 different editors disagreed with you, and rejected YOUR edits; I see a similar pattern everywhere you've edited. Continue this pattern of childish behavior and disruptive editing, and you'll be blocked from editing. ChillyMD (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you and Fuzbaby, who seem to demonstrate ownership of articles which concern the roles of health professions, should go and edit the articles on chiropractors, audiologists, nurse practitioners, physician asistants and clinical psychologists to scrub them of any reference to the use of diagnosis or the title doctor. WP should be consistent, you agree?DoctorDW (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Being as I was a nurse practitioner for 11 years, I'll happily edit those articles. Perhaps you should take your own advice, quit wikistalking me, and return to wikipedia once you've decided to contribute in an constructive manner. Interesting, though, how you scrub medical articles of the word physician and then accuse others of doing what you've been doing/warned for numerous times, for example . Trying to discuss things with you is less fruitful than talking to a wall, and I've tired of this. Let me know when you have something remotely constructive to contribute, otherwise expect me to revert crap if I see crap, as every editor has the right. I'd direct you to if you need more guidance on editing. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the above "Move" discussion it appears that the intent of the community was for this particular article to focus on "medical diagnosis", not a more vague "diagnosis". Unless there is extensive consensus to the contrary, we should keep with this interpretation. ChillyMD (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Broaden scope of diagnosticians
The current article limits who can diagnose to physicians. This is contrary to current health care practice where many disciplines diagnose. Some examples include, psycologists, chiropractors, audiologists, physical therapists, dentists, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. A check of the wiki pages of all these disciplines will support this position. I suggest the article be edited to reflect modern practice of health care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorDW (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree: I suggest changing the heading from "medical diagnosis" to "health diagnosis". This recognizes reality; recognizes the unique aspects of diagnosing in health care; and causes all those who are diagnosing to pause and consider how they are diagnosing, and to what standard. Even lay persons diagnose themselves. What counts is whether the diagnostician is sufficiently qualified and adheres to a sufficiently rigourous process of diagnosis for the health care context. The word "medical" is overused and has lost meaning anyway, in my opinion, thinking as a physician.Thinkingabout (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Thinkingabout. About the name change: please see Wikipedia guidelines about Undue weight (WP:UNDUE) and original research (WP:OR). If renaming reflects the mainstream view, then that is fine, but fringe theories (WP:FRINGE) should be treated as such. So, I'd suggest going with the position held in major textbooks supplemented with recent articles from leading journals.  Hope that helps.  pgr94 (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What is BDG(2006)?
At the end of the section on Diagnosis in Medical Practice there is an obscure reference to BDG(2006). It comes after a paragraph about problems with psychiatric diagnosis. Is it a reference to a book or document? OldMonkeyPuzzle (talk) 06:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
What is the difference between a medical diagnosis and a medical certificate ? Are they different documents ? Neither article mentions each other. Thanks Votedaisy (talk) 18:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Picture grammar caption no sense making
"An example of a medical algorithm for assessment and treatment of overweight and obesity."

Consider

"An example of a medical algorithm for assessment and treatment of obesity and the overweight"

or "An example of a medical algorithm for assessment and treatment of persons who are overweight or obese." Lesion ( talk ) 03:55, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Content rearranged
I just moved a lot of the article content around. It was my intent to make the article follow the style guide recommended at Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles.

I did not add any content to that point. I hardly deleted anything.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  19:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

seasonal affect disorder.
I’m suffering badly with it right now and have been for 3 months and it’s getting worse. I’m temporarily residing in Ohio where it’s gloomy quite often i stay depressed, it’s out of control, i need advice soon 2603:6010:9B41:3F00:143E:EFFC:A8D6:4B45 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Diagnostic uncertainty
I'm looking at a JAMA article about Diagnostic uncertainty and wondering how that topic fits into this article. This particular article could also be used in doctor-patient relationship. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2789773 User:Fred Bauder Talk 15:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata item
This article is linked to Q9206884 (medical diagnostics), while practically all other wikis are linked to Q177719 (medical diagnosis). There is a distinction between the two topics, where medical diagnostics results in a medical diagnosis.

I feel either this article should be linked to the other Wikidata item, or renamed to reflect the topic it is linked to. - Rooiratel (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)