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) No edit summary |
||
| 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: | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 11 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