Modify Your Subscription
Home > List Archives
"No So FAST"caesar ursic firstname.lastname@example.org
Mon, 31 Mar 2003 16:44:35 -0800 (PST)
- 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, > email@example.com 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