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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

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.