Responses

PDF

Can we abolish skull x rays for head injury?
Compose Response

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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    X Rays in head injury

    Dear Editor,

    Imaging has been a topic of discussion in all patients with head injuries. Authors conducted a cross county retrospective audit in Royal Shrewsbury and Princess Royal Hospitals in 2004 over a period of 6 months. Our audit findings are very similar to findings of Reed et al1. We looked at the implication of NICE Guidelines on the present protocol.2 NICE Guidelines emphasise on the CT scan as the main cho...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Can we abolish skull x rays for head injury?
    • Alan M Leaman, Consultant in Emergency Medicine
    • Other Contributors:
      • Edward Rysdale , SpR in Emergency Medicine

    Dear Editor,

    We would like to comment on the paper by Reed et al in which they describe the consequences of introducing the NICE guidance on head injury into their paediatric emergency department.[1] In particular we are surprised at their conclusions.

    This data shows that following the introduction of the NICE guidance the number of CT scans performed doubled, but that this additional scanning did not re...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Too much ado for what?

    Dear Editor,

    Any additional evidence of uselessness of skull x-ray following head injury is welcome, but not at all if that means an increase in radiation exposure in single children owing to an excess in CT scans. The expected result should have been less CTs, at least the ones induced by the finding of harmless skull linear fractures. The same the guidelines (apart from skull x-ray, proved useless) in the two co...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.