Re: IDSA Guidelines...can anyone tell me what this means?


Rita Stanley wrote:
"the 3rd Man" <derdrittemann2003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1160707014.035214.249530@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I guess that's what I really want to know...if a doc reaches the
diagnosis...but the blot doesn't confirm...do these guidelines suggest
that he NOT treat?

I would say the doc's *** is covered if he doesn't treat without lab
confirmation.

Sure. But that's really not the same question...that's from the doc's
perspective, whether he decides to treat or not...and the question is:
if they really mean don't treat unless you have a confirmatory
blot...why don't they just say so?

In other words, doesn't the absence of such a statement really sort of
demonstrate that they did NOT intend this?

I really don't know...but seems to me, it would be real simple to just
say, "in the absence of a confirmatory western blot, the IDSA does not
recommend treatment"...and they really don't say that...directly, at
least.

....but I agree that is how it will most likely be interpreted.

I would think it would be obvious somewhere in the document if a doc was
OKayed to treat without test confirmation. Maybe he could, but the document
does not make a doc feel safe or comfortable or encouraged to make a
diagnosis without lab 'confirmation' in anything except correctly identified
EM rashes.


Yes. Makes sense to me.

And the ambiguity, the absence of clarification, seems to favor
non-treatment, the way it is worded.

.