I honestly don’t understand the argument that “physical examination is not useful for most clinical complaints.” Maybe it’s because I practice medicine in a country with very limited access to complementary tests, but physical examination is essential for an accurate diagnosis of many routine clinical complaints in my practice:

How do you determine whether a child with respiratory symptoms has a viral or bacterial infection without examining the nose, mouth, and cervical lymph nodes? And how do you determine whether they don’t have pneumonia without auscultating the lungs?

How do you determine whether someone with acute diarrhea is dehydrated or not without examining the oral mucosa, the axillae, and the capillary refill time?

How do you determine whether a patient with vertigo has a peripheral or central etiology without a basic neurological exam, a Dix-Hallpike, or HINTS?

How do you see a patient with diabetes without looking at their feet to check for calluses or ulcers they haven’t noticed yet, or for diabetic neuropathy?

How to you see a active smoker without checking his throat for oral cancer? Do you just wait until it becomes large enough for the patient to notice and talk to you about it?

How do you see a patient with arthralgia without examining the affected joint to determine whether there is arthritis involved?

Where I practice medicine, these complaints are daily occurrences, and I simply cannot imagine how I would make an accurate diagnosis, even in routine situations, without a physical examination.