Abstract
In Reply.— We thank Dr Pomrehn, Dr Martyn, and Ms Mackay for their interest in our work and share their concern over the cost-effectiveness of modern diagnostic medical procedures. We have several comments concerning the points they raise in their correspondence. We did not equate a normal xenon scan with the absence of inhalation injury, since that obviously would have been begging the question. The final clinical determination of whether inhalation injury was present was based on an evaluation of all the physical signs and symptoms, bronchoscopic examination, and roentgenographic and laboratory data (excluding the scan). It was clearly stated that 31 of 32 patients with normal scans had no conclusive evidence of inhalation injury and that there was one false-negative. Our Table 2 was a comparison of the ancillary data for patients with normal vs abnormal scans, not the presence or absence of inhalation injury. The correspondents
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
