Do Doctors Use Hit and Trial Methods for Diagnosing Common Diseases?

The term hit and trial in medical practice refers to a method where multiple treatments are tried sequentially and often without a systematic initial differential diagnosis, the primary goal being to test and identify the most effective intervention through trial and error. While this approach might appear promising, there are significant risks and ethical considerations that should be taken into account.

Challenges of the Hit and Trial Method

Implementing the hit and trial method in diagnosing common diseases would mean attempting a series of treatments without gathering concrete clinical history and performing a general examination that narrows down the possible diagnoses to the most likely one. This approach would be inefficient and potentially harmful. Imagine a patient being subjected to 100–150 medications or undergoing the knife 10–20 times, all in the hope that something will work. Such a practice would likely result in a morass of drug interactions and side effects, causing further complications and increasing the patient’s morbidity.

Threats to Patient Safety

The hit and trial method fundamentally contradicts the principles of evidence-based medicine and patient safety. Relying on unstructured and un-targeted interventions without a clear differential diagnosis would not only be a waste of medical resources but could also lead to an unnecessary burden on the patient. Every medication comes with potential side effects, and the cumulative effect of such an extensive treatment regimen would be a substantial risk to patient health.

A systematic and structured approach is paramount in medical practice. Instead of the hit and trial method, doctors typically use a methodical diagnostic process that includes taking a detailed clinical history, performing a thorough physical examination, and subsequent targeted testing. This process helps to identify the underlying cause of symptoms, narrowing down the differential diagnosis to a small number of plausible conditions that can then be addressed.

Practical Examples in Medical Practice

There are instances where doctors might need to adopt a more flexible approach, for example, in diagnosing conditions such as pyrexia of unknown origin. In such cases, a series of targeted tests might be administered initially to rule out common infections or other well-known causes. Once a more specific differential diagnosis is established, further targeted interventions can be applied.

Even in these exceptional cases, the approach still involves a structured process rather than random trial and error. The key is to maintain a clear plan and rationale for each step taken, ensuring that the interventions are guided by clinical reasoning and evidence.

Conclusion

While the hit and trial method might seem like a brute force approach to medical diagnostics, it is not only inefficient but also highly risky. Doctors prioritize safety, efficacy, and evidence-based practice. The current diagnostic methods are designed to ensure a safe, effective, and efficient approach to patient care, guided by a structured and methodical process.

As healthcare professionals, we are committed to improving patient outcomes through informed and evidence-based practice. The hit and trial method is not part of standard medical practice, and any deviation from this principle is carefully considered and usually reserved for rare and complex cases. Patient safety remains our top priority, and we always strive to follow the best practices that ensure the well-being of our patients.

References

[1] Katz, J., Wysokinsky, L. (2016). The Future of Clinical Practice in a Data-Rich Era of Medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine, 165(6), 418–423.
[2] Green, S. M., Fontelo, P. (2014). The Practice of Evidence-based Medicine in Internal Medicine Residency Programs in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine, 160(8), 558–565.
[3] Sayah, N. H., Stein, M. J., Harbrecht, B. G. (2015). Diagnosing Pyrexia of Unknown Origin. Surgical Infections, 16(2), 137–144.