李小琴, 张学艳, 毛一扬, 胡君, 程金霞, 金武. 一起职业性肿瘤（苯所致白血病）诊断鉴定结果不一致案例分析[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(1): 124-126. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.01.028
引用本文: 李小琴, 张学艳, 毛一扬, 胡君, 程金霞, 金武. 一起职业性肿瘤（苯所致白血病）诊断鉴定结果不一致案例分析[J]. 职业卫生与应急救援, 2024, 42(1): 124-126. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.01.028
shu
LI Xiaoqin, ZHANG Xueyan, MAO Yiyang, HU Jun, CHENG Jinxia, JIN Wu. A case analysis of inconsistency between diagnosis and appraisal of occupational tumors(benzene-induced leukemia)[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(1): 124-126. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.01.028
Citation: LI Xiaoqin, ZHANG Xueyan, MAO Yiyang, HU Jun, CHENG Jinxia, JIN Wu. A case analysis of inconsistency between diagnosis and appraisal of occupational tumors(benzene-induced leukemia)[J]. Occupational Health and Emergency Rescue, 2024, 42(1): 124-126. DOI: 10.16369/j.oher.issn.1007-1326.2024.01.028
shu

一起职业性肿瘤（苯所致白血病）诊断鉴定结果不一致案例分析

A case analysis of inconsistency between diagnosis and appraisal of occupational tumors(benzene-induced leukemia)

    摘要
  • 摘要: 苯所致白血病的归因诊断较为困难，在诊断、鉴定过程中存在争议。通过对一起职业病诊断机构诊断结论为“职业性肿瘤（苯所致白血病）”，而市级、省级鉴定机构均诊断为“无职业性肿瘤”的病例资料进行分析，探寻诊断、鉴定工作中存在的不足。认为有无职业性苯接触史的认定是该案例诊断结论与鉴定结论不一致的根本原因。通过该案例，旨在为诊断、鉴定机构工作人员提供经验借鉴。

     

    • HTML全文
    • 参考文献(8)
    • 相关文章
    • 施引文献
  • 资源附件(0)

/

返回文章
返回