Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Navigating the ambiguity of invasiveness: is it warranted? A response to De Marco et al
  1. Nicholas Shane Tito
  1. Psychiatry, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nicholas Shane Tito, Psychiatry, Cape Fear Valley Medical Center, Fayetteville, North Carolina, USA; nicholas.s.tito{at}proton.me

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Navigating the ambiguity of invasiveness: is it warranted?

Authors De Marco and colleagues have presented a new model on the concept of invasiveness, redefining both its technical definition and practical implementation.1 While the authors raise valid critiques regarding the discrepancy in definitions, I cannot help but wonder about the purpose of redefining terms for which little confusion, if any, exists? This commentary seeks to scrutinise the rationale supporting the new model in the absence of significant clinical confusion and to explore the implications for clinical practice.

What are we trying to solve?

Initially, one may notice there is no mention of clinical relevancy, confusion among patients or whether the discrepancy in terms is causing miscommunication. It seems reasonable that some clinical confusion may exist, but so too does a similar imbalance of terms when speaking technically across the specialties; take depression and its definition as a primary example.

While I certainly agree with the illustration of non-invasive prenatal testing being compared with venous blood draws as a disparity in terminology, little evidence suggests confusion concerning the nosology.2 The medical community, including both physicians and patients, recognises that the terminology is specifically used within the …

View Full Text

Footnotes

  • Contributors NST is a psychiatry resident at Cape Fear Valley Medical Center in North Carolina who focuses his research on the intersection of medicine, religion and belief.

  • Funding The author has not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

  • Feature article
    Gabriel De Marco Jannieke Simons Lisa Forsberg Thomas Douglas

Other content recommended for you