Article Text
PDFLetters to the editor
Why the curious incident of the dog in the night was ‘contributory’
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Recent contributions to Practical Neurology have identified terms to be avoided.1 ,2 Can I suggest that the term ‘non-contributory’, when applied to a diagnostic test, is put in the dustbin too?
Working in a diagnostic speciality, I am weary of seeing ‘nerve conduction studies were non-contributory’, or similar, in clinic letters. This translates as ‘the tests were not abnormal’. However, as Sherlock Holmes fans will recall, the absence of an abnormal …
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- The case of the missing data
- Prospective analysis of the accuracy of diagnosis of carpal tunnel syndrome using a web-based questionnaire
- How to get the most out of nerve conduction studies and electromyography
- Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of the 2021 EAN/PNS and 2010 EFNS/PNS diagnostic criteria for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy
- Clinicopathological case: rapid cognitive decline in an older man
- The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time
- A far from fairytale romance
- White coats and fingerprints: diagnostic reasoning in medicine and investigative methods of fictional detectives
- SNAPs, CMAPs and F-waves: nerve conduction studies for the uninitiated
- Highlights from this issue