This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: After reading the thoughtful and provocative study by Dr Schriger and colleagues,¹ we came away unsure about the generalizability of their findings. The authors carefully showed that the accuracy of computed tomographic (CT) interpretation depended on the difficulty of scan type. The average correct score for interpretation ranged from 98% for "easy hemorrhages" to only 48% for "difficult acute infarctions." They also provided the frequency distribution of scan types shown to the physician readers. To evaluate the external validity of their results, however, we need to know the distribution of scan types for the general population of patients with acute stroke, not just the patients in their protocol library.

The estimate of overall accuracy hinges on this information. If easier scans are more heavily represented in practice than in the study population, then physicians' overall accuracy in CT interpretation is likely better than what the authors report. . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Public Perception of Stroke Warning Signs and Knowledge of Potential Risk Factors
Arthur M. Pancioli, Joseph Broderick, Rashmi Kothari, Thomas Brott, Alfred Tuchfarber, Rosie Miller, Jane Khoury, and Edward Jauch
JAMA. 1998;279(16):1288-1292.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Timely and Appropriate Treatment of Acute Stroke: What's Missing From This Picture?
Phil B. Fontanarosa and Margaret A. Winker
JAMA. 1998;279(16):1307-1309.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT