Re: Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

Standard

Re : Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model. / Gram, Emma Grundtvig; Brodersen, John; Haase, Christoffer Bjerre; Martiny, Frederik; Kusta, Olsi; Damhus, Christina Sadolin.

In: European Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 36, 2021, p. 655–656.

Research output: Contribution to journalLetterpeer-review

Harvard

Gram, EG, Brodersen, J, Haase, CB, Martiny, F, Kusta, O & Damhus, CS 2021, 'Re: Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model', European Journal of Epidemiology, vol. 36, pp. 655–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1

APA

Gram, E. G., Brodersen, J., Haase, C. B., Martiny, F., Kusta, O., & Damhus, C. S. (2021). Re: Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model. European Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 655–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1

Vancouver

Gram EG, Brodersen J, Haase CB, Martiny F, Kusta O, Damhus CS. Re: Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model. European Journal of Epidemiology. 2021;36:655–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1

Author

Gram, Emma Grundtvig ; Brodersen, John ; Haase, Christoffer Bjerre ; Martiny, Frederik ; Kusta, Olsi ; Damhus, Christina Sadolin. / Re : Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model. In: European Journal of Epidemiology. 2021 ; Vol. 36. pp. 655–656.

Bibtex

@article{44d54eb9a6794429af0b99cf967d37f4,
title = "Re: Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model",
abstract = "It is with great interest we have read the article {"}Overdiagnosis: one concept, three perspectives, and a model{"} by Hofmann and colleagues. We share the authors' ambition of understanding what overdiagnosis is and what it isn't. In our research, we define overdiagnosis on the basis of two interrelated phenomena: overdetection and overdefinition. Overdetection is the labelling of a person with a disease or abnormal condition, that would not have caused the person harm, e.g., symptoms or death, if left undiscovered. Overdefinition is the creation of new diagnoses by overmedicalising ordinary life experiences or expanding existing diagnoses by lowering thresholds or widening diagnostic criteria, without evidence of improved outcomes. These phenomena have different causes and thereby often different drivers. However, they have one important consequence in common: people are turned into patients unnecessarily, i.e., overdiagnosed. On a personal level, overdiagnosis cause various types of harms, including physical, psychological, social and financial harm. On a societal level, overdiagnosis may also cause harm to public health, cause resource waste, and cultural changes with overmedicalisation of normal life events. By definition, none of the aforementioned phenomena lead to any clinical benefit. Therefore, we disagree with Hofmann and colleagues' definition of overdiagnosis as diagnoses that {"} horizontal ellipsis on balance, do more harm than good.{"}. We argue that introducing balance and benefits to the definition of overdiagnosis complicates the concept unnecessarily and cause problems operationalising overdiagnosis.",
keywords = "Overdiagnosis, Definition, Medicalization, Harms",
author = "Gram, {Emma Grundtvig} and John Brodersen and Haase, {Christoffer Bjerre} and Frederik Martiny and Olsi Kusta and Damhus, {Christina Sadolin}",
year = "2021",
doi = "10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "655–656",
journal = "European Journal of Epidemiology",
issn = "0393-2990",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Re

T2 - Hofmann et al. Overdiagnosis, one concept, three perspectives, and a model

AU - Gram, Emma Grundtvig

AU - Brodersen, John

AU - Haase, Christoffer Bjerre

AU - Martiny, Frederik

AU - Kusta, Olsi

AU - Damhus, Christina Sadolin

PY - 2021

Y1 - 2021

N2 - It is with great interest we have read the article "Overdiagnosis: one concept, three perspectives, and a model" by Hofmann and colleagues. We share the authors' ambition of understanding what overdiagnosis is and what it isn't. In our research, we define overdiagnosis on the basis of two interrelated phenomena: overdetection and overdefinition. Overdetection is the labelling of a person with a disease or abnormal condition, that would not have caused the person harm, e.g., symptoms or death, if left undiscovered. Overdefinition is the creation of new diagnoses by overmedicalising ordinary life experiences or expanding existing diagnoses by lowering thresholds or widening diagnostic criteria, without evidence of improved outcomes. These phenomena have different causes and thereby often different drivers. However, they have one important consequence in common: people are turned into patients unnecessarily, i.e., overdiagnosed. On a personal level, overdiagnosis cause various types of harms, including physical, psychological, social and financial harm. On a societal level, overdiagnosis may also cause harm to public health, cause resource waste, and cultural changes with overmedicalisation of normal life events. By definition, none of the aforementioned phenomena lead to any clinical benefit. Therefore, we disagree with Hofmann and colleagues' definition of overdiagnosis as diagnoses that " horizontal ellipsis on balance, do more harm than good.". We argue that introducing balance and benefits to the definition of overdiagnosis complicates the concept unnecessarily and cause problems operationalising overdiagnosis.

AB - It is with great interest we have read the article "Overdiagnosis: one concept, three perspectives, and a model" by Hofmann and colleagues. We share the authors' ambition of understanding what overdiagnosis is and what it isn't. In our research, we define overdiagnosis on the basis of two interrelated phenomena: overdetection and overdefinition. Overdetection is the labelling of a person with a disease or abnormal condition, that would not have caused the person harm, e.g., symptoms or death, if left undiscovered. Overdefinition is the creation of new diagnoses by overmedicalising ordinary life experiences or expanding existing diagnoses by lowering thresholds or widening diagnostic criteria, without evidence of improved outcomes. These phenomena have different causes and thereby often different drivers. However, they have one important consequence in common: people are turned into patients unnecessarily, i.e., overdiagnosed. On a personal level, overdiagnosis cause various types of harms, including physical, psychological, social and financial harm. On a societal level, overdiagnosis may also cause harm to public health, cause resource waste, and cultural changes with overmedicalisation of normal life events. By definition, none of the aforementioned phenomena lead to any clinical benefit. Therefore, we disagree with Hofmann and colleagues' definition of overdiagnosis as diagnoses that " horizontal ellipsis on balance, do more harm than good.". We argue that introducing balance and benefits to the definition of overdiagnosis complicates the concept unnecessarily and cause problems operationalising overdiagnosis.

KW - Overdiagnosis

KW - Definition

KW - Medicalization

KW - Harms

U2 - 10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1

DO - 10.1007/s10654-021-00773-1

M3 - Letter

C2 - 34275016

VL - 36

SP - 655

EP - 656

JO - European Journal of Epidemiology

JF - European Journal of Epidemiology

SN - 0393-2990

ER -

ID: 275011748