EBQ talk:Sgarbossa Criteria Study: Difference between revisions
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) (Created page with "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 f...") |
Ostermayer (talk | contribs) m (Ostermayer moved page EBQ talk:Sgarbossa Criteria to EBQ talk:Sgarbossa Criteria Study) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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 | 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: | Con: | ||
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296327 | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296327 | ||
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165668 | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165668 | ||
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857407 | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857407 | ||
Pro: | Pro: | ||
Latest revision as of 17:49, 12 April 2014
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