B''H
I just read an
article in JAMA[1]
questioning the need for routine physical examination on a healthy patient as
there is no "evidence" to support this. The author then presents an
anecdote regarding his own father who on a routine physical examination was
thought to have enlarged aorta by palpation: leading to an ultrasound showing a
normal aorta but question of a pancreatic mass; leading to a CT scan showing a ,
of course, normal pancreas but a possible liver lesion; leading to a biopsy (of
a hemangioma); leading to a hemorrhage; and , finally, the denouement,
leading to a stay in an ICU. Cost:
$50,000. Admittedly, the author is trying to pick a bone with routine yearly
physical examinations but the article gives impression that examination of a
"healthy" organ is worse than useless and calls into question the
usefulness of any physical examination.
Since we are in
the realm of anecdote let me present a few. In my career, I have picked up on
routine examination six or seven abdominal aortic aneurysms of significant
size. All of these patients were smokers and had a bruit. My yield on this
physical finding is about 80%. I suspect the author's father's internist had
never palpated an actual aneurysm. When I taught in a medical school, I told my
students and residents that the key to physical examination is not to be Dr.
Joseph Bell[2]
but just to do it. In other words, the key is to look for the obvious not the
subtle.[3]
Unfortunately fear of lawsuits has made all of us order tests for insignificant
findings.