This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Fredric M. Wolf, PhD; Larry D. Gruppen, MA; John E. Billi, MD
University of Michigan Medical School Ann Arbor

JAMA. 1985;254(20):2890-2891.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—

We agree with Dr Nardone that in medicine the clinician often uses both a "depth" and "breadth" approach in evaluating a patient's clinical findings. Using a "depth" approach, the clinician probes for information in a vertical, "aggressive" style within one disease in order to confirm or disconfirm his or her primary hypothesis. Using a "breadth" approach, the clinician probes in a horizontal, "cautious" style across competing hypotheses in a differential diagnosis. Many of us believe that these depth-breadth strategies are indeed complementary, and that the clinician frequently pursues a sequential pattern in which the initial symptom (eg, pleuritic chest pain) is pursued along a vertical path by asking questions designed to confirm or rule out the primary hypothesis (eg, pulmonary embolism; was the patient immobilized?; are there calf or thigh symptoms?). The clinician may then shift to a broader "cautious" questioning mode to examine whether another diagnostic hypothesis . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?