Responses

Download PDFPDF

Cranial computed tomography in trauma: the accuracy of interpretation by staff in the emergency department
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Author's reply re: Cranial computed tomography in trauma: the accuracy of interpretation by staff in
    • Brian Mucci, Consultant Radiologist
    • Other Contributors:
      • C. Brett, L Huntley, M K Geene

    Dear Editor,

    We thank Dr Hynes and colleagues for their interest in our Paper (Emerg Med J 2005;22:538-540). To have selected participants would indeed have introduced a bias. The five permanent members of staff who read the images constituted the only five permanent members of staff at that time, and between them saw all out of hours CT head scans done from A&E for trauma.

    We agree that only persons...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Initial interpretation of head injury CT scans by A&E staff – the way forward?

    Dear Editor,

    Mucci et al.[1] in their study have re-explored a possibility of scan interpretation by A&E staff, that is worth following up given the rising number of CT scans done for head injuries. The overall agreement and false negative rates demonstrated by the authors would be generally acceptable especially in the light of the fact that nothing that required a transfer to a neurosurgical unit was missed....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Response to Mucci's study of "ED staff’s interpretation of cranial CTs in trauma"

    Dear Editor,

    We read with interest Mucci’s[1] study of the accuracy of interpretation by ED staff of cranial CTs in trauma. It is a topical subject that needs exploring, but we have questions with their design.

    Firstly, their study was underpowered with only 100 scans examined. The quoted sensitivity of 86.6% has too low a 95% confidence interval (83.4% to 89.9%) to propose trusting the reliability of thei...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Cranial computed tomography in trauma: The accuracy of interpretation by staff in the emergency dept
    • Kilian A Hynes, Consultant in A&E
    • Other Contributors:
      • Brijendra P. Shravat, and Turan S. Huseyin,

    Dear Editor,

    We read with interest the article Emerg Med J 2005;22:538-540 by Mucci, Brett, Huntley and Greene. In the methods section it mentions that the CT scans were reviewed retrospectively by five permanent members of the emergency department medical staff. We would be interested to know how these 5 members were chosen. Were there only five members of permanent medical staff in the acute Trust or were there...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.