ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2024
Hickam's Dictum: An Analysis of Multiple Diagnoses.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Navigating Medicine's Uncertainties.Cureus · 2026Article
- Myeloid sarcoma as EM blast crisis in BCR-ABL1 e6a2+ CML with myelofibrosis and TB: a case report.Open life sciences · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Case Report: Masquerading doughnut: a case of misdiagnosed ileocecal tumor-induced intussusception.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHickam's dictum ("a patient can have as many diseases as he damn well pleases") has been touted as a counterargument to Ockham's razor, which enjoins clinicians to seek a single, simple, or unifying diagnosis. Yet the phenomenon of multiple diagnoses has not been formally analyzed.
methodsWe evaluated multiple diagnoses using three methods of inquiry: (1) a review of 83 case reports; (2) a review of 220 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine; and (3) an online survey of providers' intuitions.
resultsEighty-three published case reports claimed to instantiate Hickam's dictum or violate Ockham's razor. All reported a primary diagnosis that explained the presenting illness, and one or more additional diagnoses which could be classified into four categories: (1) an incidentaloma (n = 21; 25.3%); (2) a pre-existing disease (n = 26; 31.3%); (3) a disease causally linked to the primary diagnosis (n = 33, 39.8%); and (4) a causally unrelated second disease contributing to the acute presentation (n = 3, 3.6%). Among 220 cases from the New England Journal of Medicine, all reported a unifying final diagnosis. In an online survey, 265 respondents recruited using social media evaluated four hypothetical cases with multiple diagnoses representing this categorization scheme. A majority of respondents (79%; 95% CI, 74-84%) chose the case representing category 4 - a coincident, causally unrelated second diagnosis - as the most unlikely or surprising diagnostic combination.
conclusionMultiple diagnoses commonly occur. However, the majority of the multiple diagnoses we analyzed were causally linked, or represented incidentalomas or known pre-existing diseases. These diagnostic combinations were unsurprising to a majority of surveyed providers. We show that multiple diagnoses can be arranged in a framework that considers time, probability, and causation. This framework reconciles the alleged conflict between Hickam's dictum and Ockham's razor and has greater practical and pedagogical utility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39467949What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.