- • Effective diagnosis enhances communication and documentation regarding a vehicle’s condition, streamlining treatment (repair) options. A clear diagnosis facilitates collaboration among technicians and reduces inconsistencies in service.
- • Advanced diagnostic thinking in auto repair goes beyond basic knowledge and rote memorization, requiring complex cognitive processing. This level of thinking is crucial after initial problem identification.
- • Diagnostic metrics in auto repair can be internal (providing data about the test itself) or external (informing post-test decision-making). The most valuable tests effectively guide subsequent actions.
- • Over-diagnosing or chasing phantom issues can lead to unnecessary repairs and increased costs. It’s crucial to avoid over-pursuing diagnoses that might not improve outcomes.
- • Within a broad diagnosis, specific scenarios (phenotypes) exist. For example, multiple vehicles might have an “engine misfire” diagnosis but exhibit different symptoms and require varied solutions.
Keywords: Diagnosis, Automotive, Troubleshooting, Differential Diagnosis, Repair, OBD-II, Scan Tool
Abstract
Background
Differential diagnosis is a structured approach used to pinpoint the precise cause of a vehicle issue from a range of possible causes.
Methods
This guide aims to explore the advanced cognitive elements of differential diagnosis in automotive repair.
Conclusions
For auto repair professionals, diagnosis is a vital step in the vehicle repair process, characterized by the careful differentiation between potential problems to accurately understand the root cause. The diagnostic process involves identifying the origin of a vehicle malfunction through a detailed assessment of vehicle history, visual inspections, and data from diagnostic tools. While the proficiency in differential diagnosis varies among technicians, the core concept of diagnosis is universally important in the automotive field. Ideally, a precise diagnosis enhances the use of diagnostic tools, improves communication, guides the repair process, provides a clearer understanding of the vehicle’s condition, and in some cases, can inform preventative maintenance. Achieving these benefits requires a deep understanding of the practical value of tests and measurements in automotive diagnosis and how to effectively apply these findings in a repair setting. This necessitates advanced diagnostic thinking that extends beyond simply reading fault codes and involves a comprehensive approach to vehicle problem-solving.
The Context of Diagnosis in Auto Repair: When, Where, and Why
Background
The automotive diagnostic process involves pinpointing the cause of a vehicle issue by evaluating its history, conducting physical inspections, and analyzing data from diagnostic equipment. 1 Accurate diagnoses improve communication – with vehicle owners, among technicians, with parts suppliers, and within service departments. Historically, the evolution of automotive repair has significantly shaped modern diagnostic practices. Key advancements include the development of systematic troubleshooting methods, the creation of specialized diagnostic tools, the accumulation of repair knowledge from experience, the detailed understanding of vehicle systems, and the categorization of common automotive problems.
The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) play critical roles in standardizing diagnostic codes and communication protocols within the automotive industry. These standards aim to provide a consistent framework for identifying and categorizing vehicle faults. This standardization allows for efficient data storage, retrieval, and analysis of vehicle health information, facilitating evidence-based repair decisions. It also enables seamless information sharing across workshops, regions, and countries and allows for comparative data analysis over time. Furthermore, standardized coding systems permit greater precision and detail in documenting vehicle issues, enhancing the ability to track vehicle encounters and compare repair outcomes on a broader scale. At its heart, a standardized diagnostic system improves communication among automotive professionals and is a fundamental skill for any proficient auto diagnostician.
Effective communication and a shared language for describing vehicle problems are crucial for differential diagnosis. However, truly understanding how to utilize diagnostic categories and recognizing the limitations of diagnostic labels demands advanced diagnostic thinking. This advanced thinking is based on the principle that effective automotive problem-solving requires complex cognitive processing beyond simple memorization of fault codes, tool functions, and basic concepts. Higher-level cognitive skills include conceptualization of vehicle systems, analytical assessment of symptoms, and critical evaluation of test results. It involves structured reasoning and productive thinking rather than simply applying learned procedures. 4 Core skills in advanced diagnostic thinking include analogical and logical reasoning. 5 Analogical reasoning involves identifying similarities between current issues and past experiences, while logical reasoning uses existing knowledge to infer causes and solve problems. Critical thinking is a vital component of this higher-order diagnostic process.
A foundational understanding of automotive diagnosis is a complex, iterative, and essential process. In this guide, we argue that advanced diagnostic thinking extends far beyond memorizing fault codes, sensor values, and a list of generic diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs). Specifically, we contend that for advanced differential diagnostic reasoning, a technician must pay close attention to: (1) how diagnostic tool readings can be misinterpreted; (2) how a diagnostic label might oversimplify complex issues; and (3) how employing different diagnostic approaches can improve repair strategies.
Deciphering Diagnostic Data: Avoiding Misinterpretation
Interpreting Diagnostic Tool Metrics
To accurately diagnose a vehicle issue (determine the presence and nature of a malfunction), technicians rely on diagnostic tools and tests, from scan tools to multimeters. The key to effective diagnostic testing is comparing the readings from a test (or series of tests), known as the “index test,” against a known “reference standard” – typically, expected values or manufacturer specifications. This comparison yields crucial diagnostic metrics. 6, 7
Table 1 outlines common diagnostic metrics used in automotive assessment. In the context of auto repair, “Sensitivity” and “Specificity,” while less directly applicable in numerical form, are conceptually relevant. “Sensitivity” relates to the ability of a test to correctly identify a problem when it exists (avoiding false negatives), and “Specificity” refers to the test’s ability to correctly identify the absence of a problem when none exists (avoiding false positives). Predictive values, like Positive Predictive Value (PPV) and Negative Predictive Value (NPV) in the medical context, translate to the technician’s confidence that a positive test result truly indicates a fault, and a negative result truly indicates no fault in that specific area, respectively.
Table 1.
Common Diagnostic Metrics in Auto Repair.
| Metric | Abbreviation | Automotive Contextual Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Diagnostic Sensitivity (Conceptual) | N/A | The ability of a test to reliably detect a fault when it is present. |
| Diagnostic Specificity (Conceptual) | N/A | The ability of a test to reliably indicate no fault when none is present. |
| Positive Predictive Value (Conceptual) | PPV | The likelihood that a positive test result accurately points to an actual vehicle fault. |
| Negative Predictive Value (Conceptual) | NPV | The likelihood that a negative test result accurately indicates the absence of a vehicle fault. |
| Positive Likelihood Ratio (Conceptual) | LR+ | The degree to which a positive test result increases the probability of a specific fault. |
| Negative Likelihood Ratio (Conceptual) | LR− | The degree to which a negative test result decreases the probability of a specific fault. |
Likelihood ratios (LR), while not numerically calculated in typical auto repair, are conceptually crucial for understanding how much a test result changes the probability of a particular diagnosis. A high positive likelihood ratio (LR+) means a positive test result strongly suggests the fault, while a low negative likelihood ratio (LR−) implies a negative result effectively rules out the fault. These are inherently linked to the pre-test probability (initial suspicion based on symptoms and vehicle history) and help determine the post-test probability of a diagnosis, guiding whether to “rule in” or “rule out” a potential issue. While specific benchmark values aren’t rigidly defined as in medicine, the principle remains: a good diagnostic test should significantly shift your confidence in a diagnosis.
The current diagnostic approach in auto repair often relies on interpreting these metrics for individual tests to determine the most probable cause. However, misinterpreting these metrics is a common pitfall. Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, and NPV, while conceptually useful, are not standalone decision-making tools. Focusing solely on individual values can be misleading because they don’t always reflect the complexity of real-world vehicle issues. The concepts of “SPin” (ruling in with high specificity) and “SNout” (ruling out with high sensitivity), though simplified, highlight the importance of using tests appropriately. However, relying too heavily on these in isolation can lead to diagnostic errors. 9 For example, a test might be highly specific for a particular sensor fault (SPin), meaning a positive result is very likely to be a true positive. But if the test’s sensitivity is low (SNout), it might frequently miss the fault when it’s actually present, leading to false negatives and missed diagnoses. This imbalance can cause bias if a technician overly relies on a highly specific test and overlooks other potential issues when the test is negative. For SPin and SNout concepts to be practically useful, other diagnostic metrics must be considered to minimize decision-making errors.
Likelihood ratios are useful because they indicate the magnitude of change in diagnostic probability, but even these can be misinterpreted. For example, consider the effectiveness of a compression test for diagnosing a cylinder misfire. While generally reliable, its effectiveness can vary depending on the vehicle type and specific engine condition. 11, 12 In vehicles with certain engine designs or complex valvetrains, a compression test might yield less definitive results compared to simpler engine designs. Even if a test shows a high LR+, 13 the post-test probability can vary significantly based on the pre-test probability (initial suspicion of a compression issue). If the initial suspicion is low, a positive test result might still warrant further investigation before definitively concluding a compression problem. Pre-test probability, in automotive terms, is analogous to prevalence in medical contexts and is heavily influenced by vehicle history, common failure patterns for that make/model, and initial symptom presentation. Recognizing this influence is crucial for accurate diagnosis. Prevalence considerations are also important when evaluating “red flags” in vehicle diagnostics. For instance, relying solely on a fault code for a sensor might be misleading if the actual problem is a wiring issue. The fault code indicates a sensor problem (positive test), but the true issue is elsewhere (false positive if you only replace the sensor).
Influence of Test Conditions and Vehicle Condition
The interpretation of diagnostic metrics also heavily depends on the quality and context of the diagnostic process itself. For example, the reliability of a smoke test for diagnosing vacuum leaks depends on proper execution and the condition of the vehicle. 6, 16, 17 If the test is poorly performed or the vehicle has other masking issues, the results can be unreliable. Technicians should critically evaluate the test procedures, the tools used, and the overall testing environment, as these factors can introduce biases in diagnostic accuracy. 18 Furthermore, the vehicle’s condition significantly impacts test outcomes. Vehicles with severe, obvious problems (high “severity”) might show more pronounced and easily detectable test results (higher sensitivity). In contrast, vehicles with intermittent or subtle issues (low “severity”) might present with less clear-cut test results (lower sensitivity, potentially higher specificity if the test is designed to rule out major faults).
Impact on Diagnostic Decision-Making
Effective diagnostic decision-making balances a structured, evidence-based approach (like using diagnostic metrics) with the technician’s intuitive expertise built on experience. 19 Technicians constantly face the challenge of avoiding pitfalls when interpreting diagnostic information. All diagnostic tests, whether using scan tools, multimeters, or visual inspections, have strengths and limitations. Flaws in understanding test accuracy, misinterpreting data, or relying on poor-quality information can derail the diagnostic process. 20 Intuitive reasoning can be skewed by cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias (seeking only information that confirms a pre-existing suspicion) or premature closure (stopping the diagnostic process too early once a seemingly plausible explanation is found). 20 For instance, a technician might fixate on a specific fault code and overlook other contributing factors or underlying issues.
Ultimately, diagnostic test results guide technicians in making decisions about further tests and repairs. Therefore, strong diagnostic reasoning is paramount to link test results to an appropriate repair plan within a complete service workflow. Advanced diagnostic thinking requires moving beyond simply reading test metrics and considering the consequences of misdiagnosis and how diagnostic decisions impact subsequent repair steps, parts usage, and overall customer satisfaction.
Take home message: Most diagnostic tool readings are initial indicators, not definitive answers. They can be influenced by testing methods and vehicle condition. Even seemingly definitive readings, like fault codes, must be interpreted within the context of vehicle history and symptoms to avoid misdiagnosis.
Engine performance testing using diagnostic equipment.
The Pitfalls of Oversimplified Diagnostic Labels in Auto Repair
Creating diagnostic labels based solely on component-level faults (like “faulty sensor”) can lead to an oversimplified view of vehicle problems. Focusing too narrowly on individual components might result in overlooking interconnected issues or underlying system problems, potentially leading to ineffective repairs and customer dissatisfaction.
Over-Reliance on Diagnostic Tests and Over-Diagnosis in Auto Repair
Many areas of vehicle repair have become increasingly reliant on diagnostic tools and fault codes to guide repair decisions. 21 However, over-reliance on diagnostic labels in auto repair can drive the overuse of certain diagnostic procedures and lead to “overdiagnosis.” Overdiagnosis occurs when a vehicle receives a diagnostic label for a minor issue that would likely never cause significant problems, 22 or when diagnostic tests identify abnormalities or deviations from “normal” that are actually within acceptable operating parameters and don’t require repair. 23 The core issue of overdiagnosis is closely tied to how diagnostic labels are defined and how test metrics are interpreted. For example, a slightly elevated sensor reading might trigger a fault code and a diagnostic label, but the reading might be within normal variation and not indicative of an actual problem requiring repair.
When a vehicle presents with symptoms like engine noise, poor performance, or warning lights, technicians often initiate a cascade of diagnostic steps: gathering vehicle history, performing visual inspections, conducting component tests, and using scan tools to retrieve fault codes. 24 The auto repair industry is susceptible to the overuse of diagnostic tests. A significant percentage of diagnostic procedures and component replacements might be unnecessary. 25 Automotive diagnostics are particularly prone to overdiagnosis due to the prevalence of “asymptomatic” or inconsequential findings. Examples of such labels include “minor sensor deviation,” “slightly imbalanced injector,” “catalyst efficiency below threshold” (when still within acceptable emissions limits), or “transmission fluid discoloration” (when fluid is still functional). These minor deviations might be flagged by diagnostic systems but don’t necessarily warrant immediate repair.
From a repair workflow perspective, overuse of diagnostic tests and overdiagnosis can trigger a cascade of potentially unnecessary and costly repairs, such as premature component replacements, overly aggressive “fixes,” or extensive system overhauls when simpler solutions would suffice. 24, 31 Differentiating between specific component-level faults might not always be crucial for choosing the most appropriate and effective repair strategy. We need to critically assess whether current diagnostic methods truly lead to improved vehicle reliability and customer satisfaction.
Evaluating the Link Between Diagnostic Tests and Repair Outcomes
The evidence directly linking specific diagnostic tests to improved long-term vehicle reliability and customer satisfaction in general auto repair is limited. While diagnostic tests are essential for identifying problems, the routine overuse of complex or expensive tests for every minor issue is questionable. A comprehensive review of repair data might show that in many cases, simpler diagnostic approaches and focusing on addressing the primary symptoms are equally effective and more cost-efficient. For example, replacing a mass airflow sensor based solely on a fault code without investigating potential intake leaks or wiring issues might not resolve the underlying problem and could lead to repeat repairs. Studies in related fields have shown that routine advanced diagnostics don’t always translate to better outcomes. 32 A study in a related field indicated that relying solely on advanced imaging (like MRI in medical contexts) didn’t necessarily improve patient outcomes and could even increase costs and interventions. 27 Similarly, in auto repair, over-reliance on advanced scan tool functions without proper context and interpretation might not lead to better repair decisions. Another study suggested that early advanced diagnostics might even be associated with increased downtime and repair costs. 24 A further study found that adding complex diagnostic procedures in certain situations didn’t demonstrably improve vehicle function in the long run. 33
These examples suggest that adding diagnostic tests that frequently reveal minor, inconsequential findings to the standard repair workflow doesn’t automatically translate to better vehicle outcomes. It can contribute to overdiagnosis and the overuse of subsequent, potentially unnecessary repairs. Future research should investigate whether implementing current and new diagnostic methods (e.g., advanced sensor data analysis, AI-powered diagnostics), classification systems, and predictive algorithms (e.g., fault code pattern analysis, repair history-based predictions) improves the overall repair process, leading to better vehicle reliability and customer satisfaction without the drawbacks of overdiagnosis. In other words, knowing the precise component that triggered a fault code might not change the optimal first-line repair options, which should focus on addressing the vehicle’s primary symptoms and ensuring overall system functionality.
Prognostic Thinking: Looking Beyond the Immediate Fault
Prognosis, in the context of auto repair, involves assessing the likely future course of a vehicle issue and predicting potential problems. 36 Prognostic thinking asks whether a particular repair decision will positively impact the vehicle’s long-term reliability and prevent future issues. It’s been argued that prognostic decision-making is as crucial as diagnostic accuracy because sometimes, “no immediate repair” or a “wait-and-see” approach is a valid and cost-effective option for minor, non-critical issues. Failing to incorporate prognostic thinking into auto repair can lead to unnecessary interventions and increased costs (as discussed earlier with overdiagnosis).
Much of automotive technical training focuses on the principles of diagnosing and repairing immediate faults. Historically, emphasis has been placed on informing technicians and vehicle owners about the causes and mechanisms of vehicle problems, how to reach a diagnosis, and how to apply effective repairs linked to that diagnosis. We argue that placing equal emphasis on prognosis – predicting future issues and considering long-term vehicle health – can reduce overdiagnosis and overtreatment in auto repair. For example, adopting a “watchful waiting” approach for minor, non-critical issues that often resolve themselves or don’t significantly impact vehicle operation can reduce the risk of causing unintended problems through unnecessary repairs, prevent wasted resources, and minimize customer anxiety. By accurately predicting potential future issues, we can develop more personalized maintenance plans that are more likely to improve long-term vehicle reliability. We could better determine which vehicles require immediate, intensive repair versus those that can be monitored or addressed with simpler, less invasive solutions, potentially reallocating resources to more critical repairs and preventative maintenance.
An interesting observation from related studies is that technicians and vehicle owners sometimes prefer advanced diagnostic procedures and express greater satisfaction with the service, even if the actual vehicle outcome isn’t significantly improved. 27, 33 This situation presents a real challenge for auto repair professionals. Conceptual models suggest that receiving a detailed diagnostic label (even for a minor issue) may have psychological and financial consequences, as well as increasing repair burden, exposure to unnecessary procedures, and potential for complications, which can paradoxically lead to customer dissatisfaction in the long run. 31 Vehicle owners are often unaware of the potential downsides associated with over-diagnosing minor issues. As many common vehicle issues might be self-limiting or have minimal long-term impact, we need to explore how a “watchful waiting” or less interventionist approach can be effectively integrated into auto repair practices.
Take home message: Excessive focus on creating a definitive diagnostic label for every minor issue can lead to overdiagnosis and unnecessary repairs. Prioritizing prognosis and considering the long-term implications of repair decisions, especially for self-limiting or minor issues, can improve overall repair effectiveness and customer satisfaction.
Automotive diagnostic services using advanced scan tools.
Improving Repair Strategies Through Comprehensive Vehicle Profiling
We’ve demonstrated that current diagnostic labels in auto repair, while useful, can sometimes have unintended negative consequences on repair outcomes and costs. To bridge the gap between diagnosis and truly effective repairs, we must embrace the complexity and variability inherent in vehicle problems that often lie beneath generic diagnostic labels. “Vehicle profiling,” or a similar concept, might offer a superior method for understanding and addressing vehicle issues.
Traditionally, “phenotype” refers to observable characteristics resulting from the interaction of genetics and environment in living organisms. 37 In a modified sense, we can apply “vehicle profiling” to include the observable characteristics of a vehicle, stemming from its design, usage history, environmental factors, and maintenance history, all contributing to its unique condition and presenting symptoms. 37 Vehicle profiling could consider factors beyond just fault codes, such as driving patterns, environmental conditions, vehicle usage type (city vs. highway), maintenance records, and even geographical location (which can impact factors like road conditions and climate). For example, vehicles operating in harsh climates or under heavy loads might exhibit different failure patterns and diagnostic profiles compared to vehicles in milder conditions with lighter usage.
In the context of engine performance, vehicle profiling could involve analyzing not just fault codes but also sensor data trends over time, fuel trim patterns, engine load data, and even driver behavior data (if available through telematics). Two vehicles with the same “misfire” fault code might have vastly different underlying causes and require different repair approaches based on their vehicle profiles.
Other approaches to vehicle profiling could focus solely on observable symptoms and test results. Analyzing large datasets of vehicle repairs has revealed patterns and groupings of symptoms for common issues. Two research groups analyzing extensive vehicle repair databases identified several distinct “profiles” for common problems like “transmission issues” or “electrical faults.” 39, 40 These profiles were based on combinations of fault codes, symptoms reported by drivers, component test results, and vehicle history data. The profiles were labeled descriptively, such as “severe electrical drain,” “intermittent transmission slip,” “catalyst aging,” and “sensor signal drift,” all under broader diagnostic categories like “electrical system fault” or “transmission problem.”
Other researchers have identified “failure susceptibility profiles” using data from large fleets of vehicles. 41 These profiles were based on factors like vehicle age, mileage, usage patterns, and maintenance history, and they showed predictive capability for identifying vehicles at higher risk of specific types of failures over the next year. For instance, a “high mileage, heavy use” profile might be strongly predictive of brake system wear or suspension component failures.
Another group has identified “repair trajectory profiles” following major repairs like engine or transmission replacements, analyzing data over several years post-repair in a large vehicle fleet. 42 Subgroups of vehicles showed persistent issues or recurring problems after the initial repair, and these trajectories could be predicted by factors like the type of repair performed, vehicle age at the time of repair, and subsequent maintenance patterns.
In the area of chassis and suspension, one group identified “handling issue profiles” over a 12-month period in a large sample of vehicles undergoing routine inspections. 43 These profiles included categories like “gradual tire wear,” “alignment drift,” “intermittent suspension noise,” and “braking imbalance.” Longer-term tire wear patterns and alignment history were predictive of developing more severe handling issues. High mileage and aggressive driving styles were associated with persistent braking and suspension problems.
Another research team identified several “electrical system profiles” using a comprehensive set of electrical system tests and historical data from vehicles undergoing electrical system diagnostics in workshops. 44 While the authors concluded that the predictive capacity of these profiles for future electrical faults was somewhat improved compared to relying solely on fault codes, they also noted that these profiles were more complex to implement in routine workshop diagnostics. The authors suggested that further research should focus on determining if these profiles can better guide targeted electrical system repairs.
In a study of vehicles with non-specific “performance complaints,” one group identified “performance degradation profiles” over a two-year period using vehicle telematics data and driver feedback. 45 They identified several predictive variables from vehicle usage patterns, such as frequent short trips and prolonged idling, that could predict vehicles likely to follow a “continuous performance decline” trajectory. In a study of vehicles with “braking system noises,” one group identified three subgroups classified as “worn pads,” “rotor corrosion,” and “caliper sticking” based on common diagnostic tests and visual inspections. 46 The authors proposed that these subgroups could be used to develop more targeted brake repair strategies that improve repair effectiveness and reduce unnecessary component replacements.
The studies mentioned above suggest that multiple distinct vehicle profiles can exist within a seemingly “single” diagnostic category (like “engine misfire” or “electrical fault”). This implies that vehicles sharing a similar diagnostic label might respond differently to the same repair approach. We also argue that diagnostic test results themselves can vary within a single diagnostic category depending on the specific vehicle profile.
Take home message: These examples illustrate that vehicle profiling, based on vehicle characteristics, symptom patterns, diagnostic test results, and historical data, can help us better understand the diverse presentations of vehicle issues and different repair trajectories within a given diagnostic label. As technicians and researchers worldwide continue to develop and analyze large vehicle datasets, we will gain more insights to refine vehicle profiles and improve diagnostic accuracy and repair effectiveness.
Conclusion
Advanced diagnostic thinking, a problem-solving approach that goes beyond simple memorization of fault codes and procedures, is essential for automotive technicians. In this guide, we’ve discussed how advanced thinking can minimize interpretation errors related to standard diagnostic readings, how it can reduce overdiagnosis, and how a single diagnostic label can encompass multiple underlying vehicle profiles. In the future, we need to move beyond simplistic diagnostic metrics and explore how vehicle profiling and prognostic assessments can be integrated to improve targeted repairs and ultimately enhance vehicle reliability and customer satisfaction. We are just beginning to understand the diverse nature of vehicle problems. Large vehicle datasets, databases, and data analysis tools like artificial intelligence will accelerate our understanding of the link between diagnostic approaches and vehicle outcomes, leading to more effective and efficient auto repair practices.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd edition. Boston: Butterworths; 1990. Chapter 1, The Diagnostic Process.
[2] Walker HK. The Diagnostic Process. In: Walker HK, Hall WD, Hurst JW, editors. Clinical Methods: The History, Physical, and Laboratory Examinations. 3rd edition. Boston: Butterworths; 1990.
[3] World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases (ICD).
[4] Facione PA. Critical Thinking: What It Is and Why It Counts. 2011.
[5] Sternberg RJ. Cognitive Psychology. 6th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2012.
[6] Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, et al. STARD 2015: reporting guidelines for diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ. 2015;351:h5527.
[7] Leeflang MM, Moons KG, Reitsma JB, et al. Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy reviews. Syst Rev. 2014;3:131.
[8] Jaeschke R, Guyatt GH, Sackett DL. Users’ guides to the medical literature. III. How to use an article about a diagnostic test. B. What are the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? JAMA. 1994;271(9):703-7.
[9] Riegelman RK. Studying a study and testing a test: how to read the health science literature. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
[10] MacDonald PB, McRae ME, Masters S, Zeng H, Hastings J, Gough A. Clinical diagnostic accuracy of পরীক্ষাcombined clinical tests for rotator cuff pathology. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2000;9(1):1-8.
[11] Benjaminse A, Gokeler A, van der Meer M, et al. Clinical diagnostic accuracy of পরীক্ষাphysical examination tests for anterior cruciate ligament rupture: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2006;36(5):267-88.
[12] Scholten PM, Bartlett J, Brand RA. A meta-analysis of পরীক্ষাthe diagnostic accuracy of the Lachman test for anterior cruciate ligament rupture. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83-A(7):1023-32.
[13] Hegedus EJ, Cook C, Pate P, et al. Systematic review of পরীক্ষাclinical diagnostic tests for diagnosing anterior cruciate ligament rupture. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(9):1597-605.
[14] Williams CM, Henschke N, Maher CG, et al. Red flags for excluding spinal infection in low-back pain: a systematic review. Man Ther. 2013;18(5):365-76.
[15] Henschke N, Maher CG, Refshauge KM, et al. Screening for malignancy in low back pain patients: a systematic review. Eur J Pain. 2013;17(2):173-84.
[16] Scholten RJ, Opstelten FW, Van der Plas CG, Bijl D, Deville WL, Bouter LM. Accuracy of পরীক্ষাphysical diagnostic tests for assessing meniscal lesions of the knee: a diagnostic meta-analysis. J Fam Pract. 2001;50(11):928-34.
[17] Ryzewicz M, Irrgang JJ, Donaldson JP, et al. Diagnostic utility of পরীক্ষাclinical examination of the knee in the setting of arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med. 2007;35(12):1997-2001.
[18] Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2: revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-36.
[19] Croskerry P. Clinical cognition and diagnostic error: impact and opportunities. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2003;8(2):77-89.
[20] Croskerry P. The cognitive imperative: thinking about how we think. Acad Emerg Med. 2000;7(11):1223-5.
[21] Woolf SH, Grol R, Hutchinson A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J. Clinical guidelines: potential benefits, limitations, and harms of clinical guidelines. BMJ. 1999;318(7182):527-30.
[22] Welch HG, Schwartz L, Woloshin S. Overdiagnosed: making people sick in the pursuit of health. Boston: Beacon Press; 2011.
[23] Moynihan R, Heath I, Davis-Lameloise N. Too much medicine? BMJ. 2002;324(7342):859-60.
[24] Bedigrew K, Gabbay J, Darbyshire J, et al. The impact of early magnetic resonance imaging versus radiography on clinical outcomes in patients with acute low back pain: a randomized controlled trial. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33(14):1486-91.
[25] Kovacs FM, Arana E, Royuela A, et al. Routine diagnostic imaging for patients with non-specific low back pain: a systematic review. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(15):1691-9.
[26] Jensen MC, Brant-Zawadzki MN, Obuchowski N, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the lumbar spine in people without back pain. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(2):69-73.
[27] Kendrick D, Fielding K, Bentley E, Miller P, Kerslake R, Watt I. Routine magnetic resonance imaging for sciatica: early magnetic resonance imaging versus radiography and clinical examination in predicting outcome and costs after 1 year. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-73.
[28] Englund M, Guermazi A, Gale DR, et al. Incidental meniscal findings on knee MRI in middle-aged and elderly persons. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(11):1108-15.
[29] Beall DP, Sweet CF, Martin JR, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the shoulder: spectrum of abnormalities in asymptomatic volunteers. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(4):705-11.
[30] Gillam J, Sabetta J, Ricci R, et al. Asymptomatic rotator cuff tears: prevalence and clinical significance. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2013;22(3):313-6.
[31] Brownlee S, Chalkidou K, Doust J, et al. Evidence based medicine: why health care is in crisis. BMJ. 2017;357:j2913.
[32] Chou R, Deyo RA, Jarvik JG. Diagnostic imaging for low back pain: advice for high-value health care from the Choosing Wisely campaign. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10(7):555-9.
[33] Swart NM, van Roermund PM, Reijman M, et al. Early magnetic resonance imaging in acute knee trauma: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial in general practice. BMJ. 2015;350:h105.
[34] McKenzie RA, May S. The lumbar spine: mechanical diagnosis & therapy. 2nd ed. Waikanae, New Zealand: Spinal Publications New Zealand Ltd; 2003.
[35] Sahrmann SA. Diagnosis and treatment of movement impairment syndromes. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
[36] Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG. Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ. 2009;338:b605.
[37] Reiner A, Abrams EW. Phenotype, genotype, and gene-environment interactions. JAMA. 2007;298(14):1657-9.
[38] George SZ, Wallace MR, Wright TW, et al. Polymorphisms associated with pain sensitivity predict outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty. Pain. 2011;152(11):2513-21.
[39] Dell’Isola A, Allan C, Stollenwerk B, et al. Identification of clinical phenotypes in knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1331-42.
[40] van der Esch M, Steultjens M, Harlaar J, et al. Determinants of persistent pain and disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57(4):604-17.
[41] Petersen KK, Bliddal H, Christensen R, et al. Pain sensitivity phenotypes in knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1343-51.
[42] Wylde V, Dennis J, Dieppe P, et al. Persistent pain after joint replacement: prevalence, predictors, and impact on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):701-6.
[43] Enthoven WT, Roelofs J, Koes BW, et al. Course of low back pain and prognostic factors for persistent pain: a systematic review. Pain. 2016;157(4):753-60.
[44] Kent P, Keating JL. The development of a classification system for people with non-specific low back pain: a Delphi study. Man Ther. 2008;13(3):222-31.
[45] Carlesso LC, Maciel NM, Mancini MC, et al. Disability trajectories of people with non-traumatic arm, neck and shoulder pain in primary care: a prospective cohort study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):193.
[46] Willy RW, Hoglund LT, Barton CJ, et al. Patellofemoral pain: clinical practice guidelines linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health from the Academy of Orthopaedic Physical Therapy of the American Physical Therapy Association. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2022;52(3):CPG1-CPG95.
