RT Journal
A1 Schall GL, McDonald HD, Carr LB, Capozzi A
T1 XEnon ventilation-perfusion lung scans-reply
JF JAMA
JO JAMA
YR 1979
FD July 6
VO 242
IS 1
SP 25
OP 25
DO 10.1001/jama.1979.03300010016007
UL http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1979.03300010016007
AB In Reply.— 
    We thank Dr Pomrehn, Dr Martyn, and Ms Mackay for their interest in our work and share their concern over the cost-effectiveness of modern diagnostic medical procedures. We have several comments concerning the points they raise in their correspondence.We did not equate a normal xenon scan with the absence of inhalation injury, since that obviously would have been begging the question. The final clinical determination of whether inhalation injury was present was based on an evaluation of all the physical signs and symptoms, bronchoscopic examination, and roentgenographic and laboratory data (excluding the scan). It was clearly stated that 31 of 32 patients with normal scans had no conclusive evidence of inhalation injury and that there was one false-negative. Our Table 2 was a comparison of the ancillary data for patients with normal vs abnormal scans, not the presence or absence of inhalation injury.The correspondents