Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016Too much ado for what?Show More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 22 March 2016X Rays in head injuryShow More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 22 March 2016Can we abolish skull x rays for head injury?Show More
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...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.