Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2013 Feb 5;110(6):2064-9.
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1221405110. Epub 2013 Jan 22.

Diagnostic testing and treatment under ambiguity: using decision analysis to inform clinical practice

Affiliations

Diagnostic testing and treatment under ambiguity: using decision analysis to inform clinical practice

Charles F Manski. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. .

Abstract

Partial knowledge of patient health status and treatment response is a pervasive concern in medical decision making. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) make recommendations intended to optimize patient care, but optimization typically is infeasible with partial knowledge. Decision analysis shows that a clinician's objective, knowledge, and decision criterion should jointly determine the care he prescribes. To demonstrate, this paper studies a common scenario regarding diagnostic testing and treatment. A patient presents to a clinician, who obtains initial evidence on health status. The clinician can prescribe a treatment immediately or he can order a test yielding further evidence that may be useful in predicting treatment response. In the latter case, he prescribes a treatment after observation of the test result. I analyze this scenario in three steps. The first poses a welfare function and characterizes optimal care. The second describes partial knowledge of response to testing and treatment that might realistically be available. The third considers decision criteria. I conclude with reconsideration of clinical practice guidelines.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The author declares no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Institute of Medicine . In: Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, Committee on Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines, Board on Health Care Services. Graham R, et al., editors. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2011.
    1. Phelps CE, Mushlin AI. Focusing technology assessment using medical decision theory. Med Decis Making. 1988;8(4):279–289. - PubMed
    1. Meltzer D. Addressing uncertainty in medical cost-effectiveness: analysis implications of expected utility maximization for methods to perform sensitivity analysis and the use of cost-effectiveness analysis to set priorities for medical research. J Health Econ. 2001;20(1):109–129. - PubMed
    1. Ellsberg D. Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. Q J Econ. 1961;75:643–669.
    1. Manski C. Identification problems and decisions under ambiguity: Empirical analysis of treatment response and normative analysis of treatment choice. J Econom. 2000;95:415–442.

LinkOut - more resources