Responses

Download PDFPDF
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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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