"No So FAST"

• Previous message: "No So FAST"
• Next message: "No So FAST"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Sorry, I wasn't aware that you had already discussed
this particular article.  I must have accidentally
deleted that post.  But my point is that there is
little data out there to support using FAST in the
stable blunt trauma patient.  The fact that it is used
for such in some centers doesn't seem, at least to me,
to vindicate its utility.

Of course, I could be wrong.

C.M. Ursic, M.D.
Dept. of Surgery
UCSF-East Bay
Oakland, California


--- DocRickFry@aol.com wrote:
> 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
> 


__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
http://platinum.yahoo.com

• Previous message: "No So FAST"
• Next message: "No So FAST"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]