Responses

Download PDFPDF

Plate of ribs: single institution’s matched comparison of patients managed operatively and non-operatively for rib fractures
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Letter in response to “Plate of Ribs” by Griffard J, Daley B, Campbell M, et al.

    We read with great interest “Plate of ribs: single institution’s matched comparison of patients managed operatively and non-operatively for rib fractures” by Griffard et al (1). As chest injuries are one of the most prevalent injuries encountered in trauma care, the importance of evidence for or against treatments cannot be overlooked. The authors review their institution’s recent experience with surgical stabilization of rib fractures (SSRF) and draw comparisons to other patients with chest injuries cared for by their group. We found several methodological concerns (including propensity matching, injury phenotype heterogeneity, and selection bias) that arise from their design that may significantly affect their analysis and conclusions.

    To start, the authors reference three prior studies that use patient-matching to study operative vs. non-operative treatments of fractures. The authors indicate that they made a similar matched comparison; however, there was significant heterogeneity in the methods of the referenced studies. The first study used a 1:4 match of age, GCS, other surgeries, mechanical ventilation, pressors and transfusion requirement, but introduced selection bias by excluding tens of thousands of patients cared for at hospitals that did not use SSRF (2). The next study used a 1:1 match, excluding significant traumatic brain injury (TBI), spinal, and pelvic injuries or other injuries AIS =5, to match age, sex and thoracic AIS (3). This resulted i...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.