Login
Site Search
Trauma-List Subscription

Subscribe

Would you like to receive list emails batched into one daily digest?
No Yes

 

Modify Your Subscription

Modify

 

Home > List Archives

List Archives

For your convenience, find the Trauma List Archive Below

"No So FAST"

trauma-list@trauma.org trauma-list@trauma.org
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 18:26:11 EST 

--part1_112.20f916bb.2bba2893_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/31/2003 4:11:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
zavy@whidbey.net writes:

> An interesting article that discusses the use of the
> >FAST exam in stable blunt trauma patients appeared in
> >the January issue of Journal of Trauma.  This study
> >concluded that FAST underdiagnosed important injuries
> >and therefore should NOT be used if the patient is
> >stable and can go to the CT scanner.
> 

Interestingly Caesar, you  failed to mention the discussion of that paper by 
Grace Rozycki showing how the underlying presumption of that paper was 
fllawed--that is, FAST was never MEANT to diagnose solid organ injuries 
(which is what the study defined as underdiagnosis).  If you attribute 
qualities to a test it never did have, of course you wil always make a case 
of "underdiagnosis".  This is the same study I referred to at the beginning 
of this discussion
ERF

--part1_112.20f916bb.2bba2893_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<HTML><FONT FACE=3Darial,helvetica><FONT  SIZE=3D2 FAMILY=3D"SANSSERIF" FACE=
=3D"Arial" LANG=3D"0">In a message dated 3/31/2003 4:11:40 PM Eastern Standa=
rd Time, zavy@whidbey.net writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=3DCITE style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT=
: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">An interesting article that dis=
cusses the use of the<BR>
&gt;FAST exam in stable blunt trauma patients appeared in<BR>
&gt;the January issue of Journal of Trauma.&nbsp; This study<BR>
&gt;concluded that FAST underdiagnosed important injuries<BR>
&gt;and therefore should NOT be used if the patient is<BR>
&gt;stable and can go to the CT scanner.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Interestingly Caesar, you&nbsp; failed to mention the discussion of that pap=
er by Grace Rozycki showing how the underlying presumption of that paper was=
 fllawed--that is, FAST was never MEANT to diagnose solid organ injuries (wh=
ich is what the study defined as underdiagnosis).&nbsp; If you attribute qua=
lities to a test it never did have, of course you wil always make a case of=20=
"underdiagnosis".&nbsp; This is the same study I referred to at the beginnin=
g of this discussion<BR>
ERF</FONT></HTML>

--part1_112.20f916bb.2bba2893_boundary--