Información de la revista
Vol. 22. Núm. S1.
Informe SESPAS 2008: Mejorando la efectividad de las intervenciones públicas sobre la salud
Páginas 216-222 (abril 2008)
Respuestas rápidas
Compartir
Compartir
Descargar PDF
Más opciones de artículo
Vol. 22. Núm. S1.
Informe SESPAS 2008: Mejorando la efectividad de las intervenciones públicas sobre la salud
Páginas 216-222 (abril 2008)
Capítulo 4. Un sistema de salud integrado y centrado en los usuarios
Open Access
El entusiasmo por las pruebas diagnósticas: efectos en la salud y formas de control. Informe SESPAS 2008
Enthusiasm for diagnostic tests: health effects and their surveillance
Visitas
1173
Blanca Lumbreras
Autor para correspondencia
blumbreras@umh.es

Correspondencia: Blanca Lumbreras. Universidad Miguel Hernández. CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP).
, Ildefonso Hernández Aguado
Departamento de Salud Pública, Historia de la Ciencia y Ginecología, Universidad Miguel Hernández. CIBER en Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)
Este artículo ha recibido

Under a Creative Commons license
Información del artículo
Resumen

A la progresiva medicalización de la vida se está añadiendo en los últimos años un desmedido interés por la salud que se convierte en una finalidad de la existencia y no en un medio. Esta nueva concepción de la salud como fin, ha motivado el crecimiento del llamado mercado secundario de la salud y de que se hable de la «sociedad de la salud» al igual que se habla de la sociedad del conocimiento. Entre los «productos» sanitarios más populares se encuentran las pruebas diagnósticas; de ahí el entusiasmo surgido por los programas de cribado o por las nuevas tecnologías genéticas, sobre todo en detección y pronóstico de cáncer. El fenómeno afecta a la salud pública por la capacidad iatrogénica de las pruebas diagnósticas y por la carga asistencial prescindible que su uso exagerado provoca. La Administración sanitaria debe encarar este reto con un diverso abanico de intervenciones, que van desde el ámbito de la gestión clínica y sanitaria a la formulación de políticas sanitarias, sin descuidar la mejora de una investigación cuya aportación al conocimiento para un diagnóstico clínico fundado es, hasta la fecha, escasa dada su irregular calidad.

Palabras clave:
Prueba diagnóstica
Efectos adversos
Diagnóstico basado en la evidencia
Abstract

The medicalization of life has been encouraged by an excessive interest in health as an end in itself rather than as a means for a better life. This new concept of health has stimulated the growth of the secondary market of health and, in analogy with the knowledge society, the emergence of what is known as the “health society”. Among the most popular health “products” are diagnostic tests, explaining the enthusiasm for screening programs and the new genetic technologies, especially in the detection and prognosis of cancer. Because of the iatrogenic potential of diagnostic tests and the unnecessary demand caused by their excessive use, this phenomenon is a matter of public health concern. Health administrations must face this challenge with a diverse range of interventions that range from clinical management to policy formulation including the improvement of diagnostic research. The contribution of diagnostic research has so far been limited by its irregular quality.

Key words:
Diagnostic test
Adverse effects
Evidencebased diagnosis
El Texto completo está disponible en PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
S. Márquez, R. Meneu.
La medicalización de la vida y sus protagonistas.
Gest Clin Sanit, 2 (2003), pp. 47-53
[2.]
E.S. Fisher, H.G. Welch.
Avoiding the unintended consequences of growth in medical care: how might more be worse?.
JAMA, 281 (1999), pp. 446-453
[3.]
R. Winkens, G.J. Dinant.
Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Rational, cost effective use of investigations in clinical practice.
BMJ, 324 (2002), pp. 783
[4.]
P. Leurquin, V. Van Casteren, J. De Maeseneer.
Use of blood tests in general practice: a collaborative study in eight European countries. Eurosentinel Study Group.
Br J Gen Pract, 45 (1995), pp. 21-25
[5.]
J.Z. Ayanian, D.M. Berwick.
Do physicians have a bias toward action? A classic study revisited.
Med Decis Making, 11 (1991), pp. 154-158
[6.]
T.H. Lee, T.A. Brennan.
Direct-to-consumer marketing of hightechnology screening tests.
N Engl J Med, 346 (2002), pp. 529-531
[7.]
S.E. Gollust, S.C. Hull, B.S. Wilfond.
Limitations of direct-to-consumer advertising for clinical genetic testing.
JAMA, 288 (2002), pp. 1762-1767
[8.]
L.M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, F.J. Fowler Jr, H.G. Welch.
Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States.
JAMA, 291 (2004), pp. 71-78
[9.]
W.C. Black, H.G. Welch.
Advances in diagnostic imaging and overestimations of disease prevalence and the benefits of therapy.
N Engl J Med, 328 (1993), pp. 1237-1243
[10.]
J. Rogers.
The finished genome sequence of Homo sapiens.
Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol, 68 (2003), pp. 1-11
[11.]
A. Milunsky.
Commercialization of clinical genetic laboratory services: in whose best interest?.
Obstet Gynecol, 81 (1993), pp. 627-629
[12.]
B.R. Korf.
Advances in molecular diagnosis.
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol, 8 (1996), pp. 130-134
[13.]
A. Barratt, K. Howard, L. Irwig, G. Salkeld, N. Houssami.
Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices.
[14.]
X. Castells, E., Macià F. Molins.
Cumulative false positive recall rate and association with participant related factors in a population based breast cancer screening programme.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 60 (2006), pp. 316-321
[15.]
S. Mayor.
Women with early breast cancer to be tested for trastuzumab treatment.
[16.]
A.E. Raffle, M. Quinn.
Harms and benefits of screening to prevent cervical cancer.
Lancet, 364 (2004), pp. 1483-1484
[17.]
P.B. Bach, J.R. Jett, U. Pastorino, M.S. Tockman, S.J. Swensen, C.B. Begg.
Computed tomography screening and lung cancer outcomes.
JAMA, 297 (2007), pp. 953-961
[18.]
C.I. Henschke, D.F. Yankelevitz, D.M. Libby, M.W. Pasmantier, J.P. Smith, O.S. Miettinen.
International Early Lung Cancer Action Program Investigators Survival of patients with stage I lung cancer detected on CT screening.
N Engl J Med, 355 (2006), pp. 1763-1771
[19.]
M. Pérez-Fernández, J. Gérvas.
Cascade effect: clinical, epidemiological and ethical implications.
Med Clin (Barc), 118 (2002), pp. 65-67
[20.]
J.W. Mold, H.F. Stein.
The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients.
N Engl J Med, 314 (1986), pp. 512-514
[21.]
R.A. Deyo.
Cascade effects of medical technology.
Annu Rev Public Health, 23 (2002), pp. 23-44
[22.]
R.M. Chidiac, D.C. Aron.
Incidentalomas. A disease of modern technology.
Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am, 26 (1997), pp. 233-253
[23.]
D.C. Aron, T.A. Howlett.
Pituitary incidentalomas.
Endocrinol Metab Clin North Am, 29 (2000), pp. 205-221
[24.]
G. Cano-Serral, M. Rodríguez-Sanz, C. Borrell, M.M. Pérez, J. Salvador.
Desigualdades socioeconómicas relacionadas con el cuidado y el control del embarazo.
Gac Sanit, 20 (2006), pp. 25-30
[25.]
Porta M, Hernández-Aguado I. ¿Hacer más o mejor lo que hay que hacer? EIDON. En prensa 2008.
[26.]
C. Van Walraven, M. Raymond.
Population-based study of repeat laboratory testing.
Clin Chem, 49 (2003), pp. 1997-2005
[27.]
D.S. Silverstein, D.H. Livingston, J. Elcavage, L. Kovar, K.M. Kelly.
The utility of routine daily chest radiography in the surgical intensive care unit.
J Trauma, 35 (1993), pp. 643-646
[28.]
J.A. Weydert, N.D. Nobbs, R. Feld, J.D. Kemp.
A simple, focused, computerized query to detect overutilization of laboratory tests.
Arch Pathol Lab Med, 129 (2005), pp. 1141-1143
[29.]
D.W. Bates, D.L. Boyle, E. Rittenberg, G.J. Kuperman, N. Ma’Luf, V. Menkin, et al.
What proportion of common diagnostic tests appears redundant?.
Am J Med, 104 (1998), pp. 361-368
[30.]
J.C. Dale, S.G. Ruby.
Specimen collection volumes for laboratory tests.
Arch Pathol Lab Med, 127 (2003), pp. 162-168
[31.]
American College of Physicians, (1991),
[32.]
I. Hernández-Aguado.
The winding road towards evidence based diagnoses.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 56 (2002), pp. 323-325
[33.]
P.S. Bunting, C. Van Walraven.
Effect of a controlled feedback intervention on laboratory test ordering by community physicians.
Clin Chem, 50 (2004), pp. 321-326
[34.]
R.A. Winkens, A.J. Ament, P. Pop, P.H. Reniers, R.P. Grol, J.A. Knottnerus.
Routine individual feedback on requests for diagnostic tests: an economic evaluation.
Med Decis Making, 16 (1996), pp. 309-314
[35.]
R.A. Winkens, P. Pop, R.P. Grol, A.D. Kester, J.A. Knottnerus.
Effect of feedback on test ordering behaviour of general practitioners.
BMJ, 304 (1992), pp. 1093-1096
[36.]
Variabilidad en la solicitud de pruebas de laboratorio.
Uso innecesario y estrategias de gestión de la utilización.
Var Pract Med, 12 (1997), pp. 1-5
[37.]
P.J. Greco, J.M. Eisenberg.
Changing physicians’ practices.
N Engl J Med, 329 (1993), pp. 1271-1273
[38.]
J.O. Zaat, J.T. Van Eijk, H.A. Bonte.
Laboratory test form design influences test ordering by general practitioners in The Netherlands.
Med Care, 30 (1992), pp. 189-198
[39.]
D. Davis, M.A. O’Brien, N. Freemantle, F.M. Wolf, P. Mazmanian, A. Taylor-Vaisey.
Impact of formal continuing medical education: do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behaviour or health care outcomes?.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 867-874
[40.]
G. Jamtvedt, J.M. Young.
Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 3 (2003),
[41.]
D.H. Solomon, H. Hashimoto, L. Daltroy, M.H. Liang.
Techniques to improve physicians’ use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework.
JAMA, 280 (1998), pp. 2020-2027
[42.]
J.F. Emerson, S.S. Emerson.
The impact of requisition design on laboratory utilization.
Am J Clin Pathol, 116 (2001), pp. 879-884
[43.]
R.A. Winkens, R.P. Grol, G.H. Beusmans, A.D. Kester, J.A. Knottnerus, P. Pop.
Does a reduction in general practitioners’ use of diagnostic tests lead to more hospital referrals?.
Br J Gen Pract, 45 (1995), pp. 289-292
[44.]
A.B. Flood, J.E. Wennberg, R.F. Nease Jr, F.J. Fowler Jr, J. Ding, L.M. Hynes.
The importance of patient preference in the decision to screen for prostate cancer. Prostate Patient Outcomes Research Team.
J Gen Intern Med, 11 (1996), pp. 342-349
[45.]
B. Lumbreras-Lacarra, J.M. Ramos-Rincon, I. Hernández-Aguado.
Methodology in diagnostic laboratory test research in clinical chemistry and clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.
Clin Chem, 50 (2004), pp. 530-536
[46.]
M.C. Reid, M.S. Lachs, A.R. Feinstein.
Use of methodological standards in diagnostic test research. Getting better but still not good.
JAMA, 274 (1995), pp. 645-651
[47.]
J.G. Lijmer, B.W. Mol, S. Heisterkamp, G.J. Bonsel, M.H. Prins, J.H. Van der Meulen, et al.
Empirical evidence of design-related bias in studies of diagnostic tests.
JAMA, 282 (1999), pp. 1061-1066
[48.]
J.M. Ramos Rincon, I. Hernández Aguado.
Research on diagnostic tests in medicina clinica. A methodological assessment.
Med Clin (Barc), 111 (1998), pp. 129-134
[49.]
P.M. Bossuyt, J.B. Reitsma, D.E. Bruns, C.A. Gatsonis, P.P. Glasziou, L.M. Irwig, et al.
Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.
Clin Chem, 49 (2003), pp. 1-6
[50.]
P. Whiting, A.W. Rutjes, J.B. Reitsma, P.M. Bossuyt, J. Kleijnen.
The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews.
BMC Med Res Methodol, 3 (2003), pp. 25
[51.]
N. Smidt, A.W. Rutjes, D.A. Van der Windt, R.W. Ostelo, J.B. Reitsma, P.M. Bossuyt, et al.
Quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies.
Radiology, 235 (2005), pp. 347-353
[52.]
R.E. Nakhleh, G. Gephardt, R.J. Zarbo.
Necessity of clinical information in surgical pathology.
Arch Pathol Lab Med, 123 (1999), pp. 615-619
[53.]
L.A. Murakata, M.R. Lewin-Smith, C.S. Specht, V.F. Kalasinsky, P.L. McEvoy, T.N. Vinh, et al.
Characterization of acrylic polyamide plastic embolization particles in vitro and in human tissue sections by light microscopy, infrared microspectroscopy and scanning electron microscopy with energy dispersive X-ray analysis.
Mod Pathol, 19 (2006), pp. 922-930
[54.]
W. Burke, D. Atkins, M. Gwinn, A. Guttmacher, J. Haddow, J. Lau, et al.
Genetic test evaluation: information needs of clinicians, policy makers, and the public.
Am J Epidemiol, 156 (2002), pp. 311-318
[55.]
Márquez S, Briones E. Marco para la evaluación de pruebas genéticas en el Sistema Sanitario Público de Andalucía. Sevilla: AETSA; 2005. Informe 2/2005.
[56.]
P. Nico, C.M. Van Duijn.
Predictive values instead of normal ranges: less data, more information.
Accred Qual Assur, 11 (2006), pp. 269-272
[57.]
A.R. Feinstein.
Clinical epidemiology: the architecture of clinical research.
W.B. Saunders Company, (1985),
[58.]
M.S. Pepe, R. Etzioni, Z. Feng, J.D. Potter, M.L. Thompson, M. Thornquist, et al.
Phases of biomarker development for early detection of cancer.
J Natl Cancer Inst, 93 (2001), pp. 1054-1061
[59.]
G.H. Guyatt, P.X. Tugwell, D.H. Feeny, R.B. Haynes, M. Drummond.
A framework for clinical evaluation of diagnostic technologies.
CMAJ, 134 (1986), pp. 587-594
[60.]
R. Mackenzie, A.K. Dixon.
Measuring the effects of imaging: an evaluative framework.
Clin Radiol, 50 (1995), pp. 513-518
Copyright © 2008. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Descargar PDF
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Opciones de artículo
Herramientas
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?