Epistaxis: when are coagulation studies justified? | Emergency Medicine Journal

Subscribe
Log In More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens
Log in via RCEM

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
Basket
Search More

Search for this keyword

Advanced search

Close More
Main menu

Latest content

Current issue

Archive

Authors

About
Subscribe
Log in More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens
Log in via RCEM

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
BMJ Journals

Responses

Short report

Epistaxis: when are coagulation studies justified?

Compose a Response to This Article

Compose Response

Title *

Author Information

Contributors
First Name and Middle Initial * First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'. Last Name * Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'. Email Address * Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com Occupation * Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'. Affiliation * Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.

Statement of Competing Interests

Competing interests? *

Yes

No

Please describe the 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A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.

I agree to and have read the terms and conditions for rapid responses and BMJ 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

Jump to comment:

Methodology Matters?
Mark F Buckley
Published on: 23 April 2008

Published on: 23 April 2008
Methodology Matters?
- Mark F Buckley, Emergency SHO
- Other Contributors:
  Stephan Broad, Killian Darcy, Claire Soden, Gillian Dagg,John Ryan
Dear Sir,
We reviewed Awan et al’s paper “Epistaxis: when are coagulation studies justified” today at our departmental journal club meeting. We had concerns over the vailidity of the concluions. We noted the following points:
It is not clear to us weather the 108 patients reviewed were admitted to hospital or simply presented to the emergency department. In the ‘Materials and Methods’section of the...
Show More

Dear Sir,
We reviewed Awan et al’s paper “Epistaxis: when are coagulation studies justified” today at our departmental journal club meeting. We had concerns over the vailidity of the concluions. We noted the following points:
It is not clear to us weather the 108 patients reviewed were admitted to hospital or simply presented to the emergency department. In the ‘Materials and Methods’section of the paper the autors state “charts of all patients aged >14 years with epistaxis requiring admission to the hospital…were reviewed”. Later in the ‘results’ section the authors write “108 patients ..presented to the emergency department with epistaxis”. Were these patients admitted as in-patients or did they simply present to the emergency department? We feel this terminology is important to clarify as admission for epistaxis implies greater severity or more complicated cases.
Secondly the methodology used by the authors to identify patients presenting with epistaxis is not clear. We are told that the charts of all patients >14 years with epistaxis were retrospectively reviewed but we are not told how these charts were identified. In almost 4 years 108 patients with epistaxis presenting (or being admitted) to a university hospital emergency department would seem from our experience to be a small cohort of patients for a university Emergency Department over 4 years. In our view this raises issues over the completeness of the review and how patients were identified.
We believe that the conclusions made by the authors are not substantiated by the methods and results.
Yours Sincerely,
Dr Mark Buckley
On Behalf of Dr S. Broad, Dr K. Darcy, Dr C Soden, Dr G Dagg ,Dr C. Keenan, Dr J Ryan
Show Less

Conflict of Interest:
None declared.
- Back to top