Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35253285›Full record

ReviewJournal of internal medicine2022

Broadening risk factor or disease definition as a driver for overdiagnosis: A narrative review.

João Pedro Bandovas, Beatriz Leal, Catarina Reis-de-Carvalho, David Cordeiro Sousa, João Cruz Araújo, Pedro Peixoto, Susana Oliveira Henriques, António Vaz Carneiro, Choosing Wisely Working Group of the European Federation of Internal Medicine

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

João Pedro BandovasDepartment of General Surgery, Centro Hospitalar Universitário de Lisboa Central, Lisboa, Portugal.
Beatriz LealDepartment of Anesthestics, Instituto Português de Oncologia de Lisboa Francisco Gentil, Lisboa, Portugal.
Catarina Reis-de-CarvalhoDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Medicine, Centro Hospitalar Universitário Lisboa Norte, Lisboa, Portugal.
David Cordeiro SousaVision Sciences Study Center, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
João Cruz AraújoFamily Medicine Department, Unidade de Saúde Familiar Gualtar, Braga, Portugal.
Pedro PeixotoDepartment of Family Medicine, Unidade de Saúde Familiar do Mar, Póvoa de Varzim, Portugal.
Susana Oliveira HenriquesCentral Library, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.
António Vaz CarneiroInstitute for Evidence Based Healthcare, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-2783-0544
Choosing Wisely Working Group of the European Federation of Internal Medicine
University of Lisbon · PTCentro Hospitalar Lisboa Norte · PTUnidade Local de Saúde de São José · PTZdravstveni centar · RS

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical overuse-defined as the provision of health services for which potential harms exceed potential benefits-constitutes a paradigm of low-value care and is seen as a threat to the quality of care. Value in healthcare implies a precise definition of disease. However, defining a disease may not be straightforward since clinical data do not show discrete boundaries, calling for some clinical judgment. And, if in time a redefinition of disease is needed, it is important to recognize that it can induce overdiagnosis, the identification of medical conditions that would, otherwise, never cause any significant symptoms or lead to clinical harm. A classic example is the impact of recommendations from professional societies in the late 1990s, lowering the threshold for abnormal total cholesterol from 240 mg/dl to 200 mg/dl. Due to these changes in risk factor definition, literally overnight there were 42 million new cases eligible for treatment in the United States. The same happened with hypertension-using either the 2019 NICE guidelines or the 2018 ESC/ECC guidelines criteria for arterial hypertension, the proportion of people overdiagnosed with hypertension was calculated to be between 14% and 33%. In this review, we will start by discussing resource overuse. We then present the basis for disease definition and its conceptual problems. Finally, we will discuss the impact of changing risk factor/disease definitions in the prevalence of disease and its consequences in overdiagnosis and overtreatment (a problem particularly relevant when definitions are widened to include earlier or milder disease).

Indexed as

Medical OveruseOvertreatmentHumansRisk Factorschanging risk factor/disease definitionsdisease definitionlow-value careoverdiagnosisovertreatmentresource overuse

Identifiers

PMID35253285
PMCPMC9314822
OpenAlexW4221135970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.