As a biased observer (retired radiologist), I have been saying the physical exam to be outdated in many contexts. When the famous diagnosticians of the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries wrote their textbooks, people didn't come to hospitals or doctors until really sick, so classic signs and symptoms were often present. But, in the office now, the pre-test probabilities are so much lower that hoofbeats are very faint. Thus, one has to decide between doing nothing, versus really specific tests, as wishy-washy ones like the PE don't change that pre-test probability enough to be useful. OTOH, I am sure there is value in laying on of the hands and getting to know a patient with whom one hopes to have a long term relationship, less directly related to Bayesian calculations.
I would just settle for evidence. Just provide the raw data of every study. Such a low bar but here we are.
As a biased observer (retired radiologist), I have been saying the physical exam to be outdated in many contexts. When the famous diagnosticians of the late 19th and early to mid 20th centuries wrote their textbooks, people didn't come to hospitals or doctors until really sick, so classic signs and symptoms were often present. But, in the office now, the pre-test probabilities are so much lower that hoofbeats are very faint. Thus, one has to decide between doing nothing, versus really specific tests, as wishy-washy ones like the PE don't change that pre-test probability enough to be useful. OTOH, I am sure there is value in laying on of the hands and getting to know a patient with whom one hopes to have a long term relationship, less directly related to Bayesian calculations.
Cochrane’s sainthood in medical education should be tempered - this reason being a big one.