I get the impression that the commissioners of editorials in the BMJ just
don't get emergency care at all. Another recent example was the editorial on
d-dimers in PE exclusion. Written by radiologists and using poor quality
evidence to back up their claims. No mention of patient assessment for risk
and how this may relate to the utility of tests such as D-dimers.
When are we likely to see editorials on the management of emergency care
written by clinicians who do it and understand it? (A comment concerning the
above editorial, written by one of my collegues, is under review by BMJ
SpR in Emergency Medicine
Manchester Royal Infirmary
[log in to unmask]
Evidence based Emergency Medicine
----- Original Message -----
From: John Ryan <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:22 PM
Subject: Rapid assessment of chest pain
> Have list members read this editorial in this week's BMJ ?
> Rapid assessment of chest pain
> David Wood, Adam Timmis, and Matti Halinen
> BMJ 2001; 323: 586-587.
> Extracts include:
> "Patients with suspected acute coronary disease should still be sent
> to the casualty department"
> "Firstly, exertional cardiac chest pain is common, frightening for the
> patient, and worrying for general practitioners and casualty officers"
> Is it any wonder that someone who uses such terminology would question
> multi-disciplinary care when they openly declare their ignorence of how
> acute care is provided.
> And as for their references. Not one from an emergency department !!!
> I am tempted to remind Professor David Wood, 'Garfield Weston chair of
> cardiovascular medicine' of the paraody 'In the land of the blind the one
> eyed king is God'. Or am I being to harsh so late on a Saturday night,
> maybe its me who needs to get out more often ?
> John Ryan