Moderator EMEDPA Posted November 22, 2020 Moderator Share Posted November 22, 2020 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 The Smith modification is quite a bit easier and (I believe) more sensitive and specific. This graphic doesn't demonstrate the concordant elevation or depression that is also a major player. http://hqmeded-ecg.blogspot.com/2015/11/validation-of-smith-modified-sgarbossa.html?m=1 Original article attached! PIIS0196064412013686.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderator LT_Oneal_PAC Posted November 23, 2020 Moderator Share Posted November 23, 2020 1 hour ago, MediMike said: The Smith modification is quite a bit easier and (I believe) more sensitive and specific. This graphic doesn't demonstrate the concordant elevation or depression that is also a major player. http://hqmeded-ecg.blogspot.com/2015/11/validation-of-smith-modified-sgarbossa.html?m=1 Original article attached! PIIS0196064412013686.pdf 2.28 MB · 0 downloads For second there I was like, “what?! Never heard of the smith modification? Then I read it and realized it’s what I’ve always used. We learned it as the “modified sgarbossa” criteria, never knew the name of the person who modified it. Afterwards we all just called it Sgarbossa criteria, always referring to the modification. In fact, it’s not even listed in MDCalc as modified, but the criteria is definitely from the modification and mention it in the evidence. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MediMike Posted November 23, 2020 Share Posted November 23, 2020 Yeah I learned the original and then thanked the gods when this came out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.