This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
CT HEAD Bilateral hemorrhagic contusions, left subdural hematoma with mass effect, scattered subarachnoid hemorrhage, occipital bone fracture and venous thrombosis adjacent to fracture site. The patient is agitated on a backboard with C-collar in place. Notable diagnostics Point-of-care glucose (initial): 274 PT/INR: 47.4/4.9
Reviving High-Dose Oxygen Therapy After Stroke Do Facial Fractures Require Antibiotic Prophylaxis? The LLM Makes You Stronger A Look at Biphasic Anaphylaxis Another Demonstration of Bias In Pulse Oximetry A Radiology Decision-Support Fail Its a Substack, but Im not trying to milk anyone for money dont worry about that!
for detecting major injuries Abnormal CXR Rapid deceleration mechanism Presence of a distracting injury Chest wall tenderness Sternal/thoracic spine/scapular tenderness There are limited decision-making rules for thoracic spine imaging Yet a study (Inaba et al., 2015) reported a sensitivity of 98.9%
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 5,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content