cut my cast off

All that said, never forget that half the physicians out there are worse than average. And the average physician isn't that good.

Misdiagnosis rates in the ICU or Emergency Department have been studied, with rates ranging from 20% to 40%.

Misdiagnosis rates in radiology range from 10% to 90% depending on the procedure and protocol, with an average rate of about 30% being considered the norm.

This is comforting. With this knowledge I've decided not to break any bones or get sick in any way.

Good luck.

Statistics like that are meaningless. Who decided what was a "misdiagnosis?" By what criteria? In how many of those cases would the diagnosis later judged to be "correct" have resulted in a better outcome due to different treatment? And how many of the armchair quarterbacks later judging the "correctness" of the initial diagnosis could've done better at the time, with the information available?

Good luck.

Statistics like that are meaningless. Who decided what was a "misdiagnosis?" By what criteria? In how many of those cases would the diagnosis later judged to be "correct" have resulted in a better outcome due to different treatment? And how many of the armchair quarterbacks later judging the "correctness" of the initial diagnosis could've done better at the time, with the information available?

For the radiology information, it's more or less gospel within the field. See for example:
American College of Radiology Bulletin, 51:12, Dec. 95
American Journal of Radiology, 1994
Robert Schmidt, University of Chicago, National Conference on Breast Cancer, 1999
New England Journal of Medicine, 1994
Radiology 1987 162: 579

I could go on quite a bit. I don't have more recent citations because I haven't done medical statistics work since 2000.

The same holds for ICU and CCU misdiagnosis, though I don't have citations to share for those. These aren't "armchair quarterbacks" calling foul. These are respected physicians addressing problems they are finding with their own and their peers work.

I used to work for UT Health Science Center doing medical statistics. While protocols differ from study to study, what criteria these papers are using for misdiagnosis is basically what courts would use for calling something a misdiagnosis in awarding damages. In other words, it's TIGHTER than merely misnaming something for which the same treatment would be effective.

Whatever.

At any rate, IMO it's audacious for a radiologist on the telephone with a statistician who's reading a Web board to encourage another guy on the board that neither has seen that he probably did the right thing by removing his own cast.
:shock:

Man I have sparked an interesting discussion.

Well after 3 days with the cast off I have about 15 or 20 percent grip strength, no pain unless I try to rotate my wrist more than about half of what should be its range of motion or I try to exceed the 15 or 20 percent grip. My wrist is still badly bruised which is kind of strange, normally bruises don't last that long with me. As for the compete set of xrays. They took 3 xrays of my hand.

I am seeing the doctor on tuesday. While I like most of your suggestions I think ill tell him I went swimming with a bag over it and it got wet so I cut it off. I am in the military and I shouldn't tell him i just cut it off.

I appreciate all the posts. I know I shouldn't have taken it off but It felt pretty good with the cast on - of course I couldn't rotate my wrist with it on.

Whatever.

At any rate, IMO it's audacious for a radiologist on the telephone with a statistician who's reading a Web board to encourage another guy on the board that neither has seen that he probably did the right thing by removing his own cast.
:shock:

I made no statement that that was the right move what-so-ever. Once again, the statement I made was highly qualied. I merely pointed out that provided his condition falls within certain parameters, treatment without a cast could be indicated as a preferred treatment protocol.

I'm not suggesting he should take the advice of an unknown radiologist and some guy on a web board. But I'm also not suggesting that he assume just because he was examined by some guy using the title "Dr." that that makes the treatment protocol prescribed correct.