Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 34, Issue 7, pp 621–623 | Cite as

Nosology expansion: not always for health’s sake

  • Rodolfo SaracciEmail author
COMMENTARY

Bjørn Hofmann outlines and discusses in this journal [1] six main ways, not mutually exclusive, through which the domain of human disease is expanded, substantively and semantically.

The rationale for nosology building is to provide a basic instrument for disease investigation in medical research and practice; these, in turn, have the substantive objective of disease control and, ultimately, of population health maintenance and improvement. The resulting relation between the latter and nosology expansion is therefore indirect as well as subject to changes in the course of time.

A long-term development

Nosology expansion occurs either by (1) adding newly occurring diseases with distinctive characteristics (e.g. emerging infectious disease like Zika Virus Infections or the Coronaviruses and Acute Respiratory Syndromes) [2] or (2) splitting an existing disease into finer categories (in fashionable language, into “finer granularity”) or (3) annexingto a known disease some manifestations,...

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Hofmann B. Expanding disease and undermining the ethos of medicine. Eur J Epidemiol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-019-00496-4. Accessed 27 April 2019.
  2. 2.
    Merck Manuals. Professional Version 2019. http://www.msdmanuals.com. Accessed 27 April 2017.
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems. Geneva: World Health Organization 2019. http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/icdonlineversions/en. Accessed 27 April 2019.
  4. 4.
    Rosenberg HM, Klebba AJ. Trends in cardiovascular mortality with a focus on ischemic heart disease: United States, 1950–1976. In: Havlik RJ, Feinleib M, editors. In: Proceedings of the conference on the decline of coronary heart disease mortality. Bethesda, Maryland: NIH Publication No. 79-7610, 1979. p. 11–39.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Winslow CEA. The conquest of epidemic disease. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press; 1980. p. 138.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strumpell A. Lehrbuch der speziellen Pathologie und Therapie der Inneren Krankheiten, für Studierende und Ârtze. 8 Auflage. Leipzig: FCW Vogel, 1894. (Italian translation, Milano: F Vallardi, 1914: vol. I, part 1, p. 258).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Falzon D, Schünemann HJ, Harausz E, González-Angulo L, Lienhardt C, Jaramillo C, Weyer K. World Health Organization treatment guidelines for drug-resistant tuberculosis, 2016 update. Eur Respir J. 2017;49(3):1602308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mortimer TD, Weber AM, Pepperell CS. Signatures of selection at drug resistance loci in Mycobacterium Tuberculosis. MSystems. 2018;3(1): pii: e00108-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKusick VA. On lumpers and splitters, or the nosology of genetic disease. Birth Defects Orig Article Series. 1969;5:23–32.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization-International Agency for Research on Cancer. WHO/IARC classification of tumours. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer 2019. https://whobluebooks.iarc.fr. Accessed 27 April 2019.
  11. 11.
    Cunanan KM, Gonen M, Shen R, Hyman DM, Riely GJ, Begg CB, Iasonos A. Basket trials in oncology: a trade-off between complexity and efficiency. J Clin Oncol. 2017;36:271–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thomas R, Mitchell GK, Batstra L. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: are we helping or harming? BMJ. 2013;347:f6172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bakris G. Similarities and differences between the ACC/AHA and ESH/ESC guidelines for the prevention, detection, evaluation and management of high blood pressure in adults. A perspective. Circ Res. 2019;124:969–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yudkin JS, Montori VM. The epidemic of pre-diabetes: the medicine and the politics. BMJ. 2014;349:g4485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Järvinen TL, Michaëlsson K, Jokihaara J, Collins GS, Perry TL, Mintzes B, et al. Overdiagnosis of bone fragility in the quest to prevent hip fractures. BMJ. 2015;350:h2088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Srivastava S, Koay EJ, Borowsky AD, De Marzo AM, Ghosh S, Wagner PD, Kramer BS. Cancer overdiagnosis: a biological challenge and clinical dilemma. Nat Rev Cancer 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41568-019-0142-8.
  17. 17.
    Gallotta G, Panico S. A new way of looking at elderly heart patients. Epidemiol Prev. 2018;42:205 [Italian].Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Currie G, Delles C. Blood pressure targets in the elderly. J Hypertens. 2018;36:234–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Paris J. The intelligent clinician’s guide to the DSM-5. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Doust J, Vandvik PO, Quaseem A, Mustafa RA, Horvath AR, Frances A, et al. Guidance for modifying the definition of diseases: a checklist. JAMA Int Med. 2017;177:1020–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moynihan R, Brodersen J, Heath I, Johansson M, Kuehlein T, Minué-Lorenzo S et al. Reforming disease definitions: a new primary care led, people-centred approach. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2019; bmjebm-2018-111148.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111148.
  22. 22.
    Saracci R. The hazards of hazard identification in environmental epidemiology. Environ Health. 2017;16:85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LyonFrance

Personalised recommendations