Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Diagnosis and undiagnosis
Neurologists often pride themselves on their diagnostic skills (figure 1). Indeed, we often assume that having made a firm diagnosis, the flow of initial treatment and longer-term management will follow almost automatically. But with long-term review of patients, neurologists are perhaps better than most at challenging the so-called ‘established diagnoses’; not infrequently they question a previously assigned diagnostic label, or even find it necessary to remove a diagnosis from a patient. Removing a diagnosis lacks a descriptive verb; euphemisms might include ‘maturation of the diagnosis’, ‘diagnostic refinement’ and so on. We suggest that the more robust term ‘undiagnosis’. Stone et al1 have discussed the different degrees of diagnostic shift. Here we address specifically the process of dealing with previous diagnostic errors, imparting a new diagnosis and removing a previous one.
The process of ‘undiagnosing’ has not been studied in any detail; some might argue that it does not merit detailed study. Yet, the impact of the removal of a long-held diagnosis—not just on the patient, but also on their family, carers and other health professionals—may be substantial. Some might assume that removing an erroneous diagnosis could only be a positive event for a patient, but our experience suggests otherwise. We have witnessed the creation of considerable distress, anger and frustration in individuals who may have shaped their lifestyle, work pattern and home life according to a neurological label attached in years gone by.
Advances in diagnostic techniques seem likely to increase the need for neurological undiagnosis. Experienced practitioners will recognise the scenario of the patient with presumed Parkinson's disease whose dopamine transporter scan remains steadfastly normal, or the patient whose diagnosis of multiple sclerosis stretches back over several decades but whose first MRI scan is pristine in its normality. Future undiagnoses …
Footnotes
-
Funding None.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Patient consent Obtained.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Andrew Chancellor, Tauranga, New Zealand.
Linked Articles
- Editors' choice
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Cancer in patients with motor neuron disease, multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease: record linkage studies
- Neurofilament light chain as a biomarker in neurological disorders
- Presymptomatic and longitudinal neuroimaging in neurodegeneration—from snapshots to motion picture: a systematic review
- ABN joint annual meeting 2009 with the Spanish Society of Neurology
- Beyond and below the cortex: the contribution of striatal dysfunction to cognition and behaviour in neurodegeneration
- Parkinson's disease: chameleons and mimics
- What do patients with scans without evidence of dopaminergic deficit (SWEDD) have? New evidence and continuing controversies
- Measuring network disruption in neurodegenerative diseases: New approaches using signal analysis
- Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is not linked to multiple sclerosis in a population based study
- Impact of DaTscan SPECT imaging on clinical management, diagnosis, confidence of diagnosis, quality of life, health resource use and safety in patients with clinically uncertain parkinsonian syndromes: a prospective 1-year follow-up of an open-label controlled study