View source for EBQ talk:Sgarbossa Criteria Study

solid work mohsen, if certain sections such as secondary outcomes don't make sense for the article you can eliminate those sections.  Here is some reading that may be useful for the further discussion and criticism section

Con:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21296327
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18165668
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19857407


Pro:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24016487

the main argument is although sgarbossa is very specific it lacks sensitivity and therefore will lead to many false positive activations of cardiology