EBQ talk:Sgarbossa Criteria Study

From WikEM
Jump to: navigation, search

solid work mohsen, if certain sections such as secondary outcomes don't make sense for the article you can eliminate those sections. Here is some reading that may be useful for the further discussion and criticism section

Con: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296327 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165668 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857407

Pro: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24016487

the main argument is although sgarbossa is very specific it lacks sensitivity and therefore will lead to many false positive activations of cardiology