You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Best evidence topic reports
BET 2: CT versus MRI for occult hip fractures
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 9 November 2018
    Response to Matthew. L Khan-Dyer
    • Bernard A Foex, Consultant in Emergency Medicine and Critical Care Manchester Royal Infirmary
    • Other Contributors:
      • Anna Russell, ST3 Emergency Medicine

    We do not disagree with the comment, hence our conclusion that, “CT is a valid first line imaging technique in suspected occult hip fracture and is easily accessible in most centres.” The intention of the BET was to present evidence on whether one modality was better than the other and so we looked for studies comparing the two imaging techniques. The study by Thomas et al. forms part of the evidence that CT scanning is a valid method of detecting occult hip fractures and so was not included in the table of evidence.
    Thomas RW, Williams HLM, Carpenter EC, Lyons K. The validity of investigating occult hip fractures using multidetector CT. Br J Radiol

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 22 October 2018
    Mr

    I read this article with interest as I am currently launching a QUIP on this exact subject.

    As a declaration of possible bias I am looking to use highly sensitive CTs to screen off negative findings to frailty services and thus avoiding orthopaedic beds.

    I am surprised that more credence was not given to the study by Thomas et al. who's sensitivity and specificity was 100% for ct. The study is one that clearly identifies MDCT as the protocol of choice when identifying occult hip fractures. I am not sure whether this is directly comparable to other studies in this way, and therefore some doubt exists as to whether current discrepancies in reporting are more attributable to the scanning protocol used.

    I feel that the current nice guidelines are out of date with modern CT scanning and is having undue influence on first line diagnostics of occult hip fractures.

    I do appreciate the move forward for CT scanning hips as first line diagnostics thus cutting bed-days/patient, expediting correct treatment and improving patient experience.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.