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

Richard A. Deyo, MD, MPH
University of Washington Seattle

JAMA. 1993;269(3):356.

	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.

—I thank Drs Abromovitz, Frazier, Kelleher, Rothschild, and Weintraub for their interest and comments. Their letters offer an opportunity to reemphasize several points, and my colleagues and I invite them all to join us in seeking better evidence regarding the accuracy and usefulness of the history and physical examination. There are several parallel but different ways to think about test accuracy, and different ones are being adopted by different generations of clinicians. None is inherently better than any other and some of the writers call attention to the advantages and disadvantages of various statistics. These points are discussed in greater detail by Sackett in his introductory article to the series on the rational clinical examination.¹

We are unaware of data on the reproducibility or validity of the tests proposed by Dr Abromovitz. Some recent studies challenge the role of facet joints as a common cause of back . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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