okay with this, also we should keep what @aaron wrote in extra, makes the definitions very clear
also in prior suggestion, @kidsaavy states “Beta blocker or benzodiazepine for performance-only subtype according to uworld.”
also stating performance only makes it very clear and removes the ambiguity that was present beforehand
Added those to extra, matched verbage of definition in nid:1484966176591 and treatment on nid:1484966178952. Rearrange as you see fit, thought it made sense to keep the treatment → definition layout going
@CTE, I appreciate your perspective on this. I am going to reevaluate this change and ensure your concerns are addressed.
@CTE, I was not aware this is the only card that covered this in step 1. I think there 2 others in the deck that cover it and that is why I was more comfortable making this change. After reexamining this card I agree that it needs to be changed again, but disagree that it should be changed to performance only treatment as that is covered by other cards. I think this card should be changed to cover alternative treatment being Benzos for no abuse history and gabapentin for abuse history. I do not believe that information is covered in the deck and is pertinent (though lower yield). I will then add step 1 tags to the other performance only cards so it is covered in step 1. Thoughts?
Most direct duplicate I can find is nid:1584235504963 tagged for Step 2 and is already tagged as a potential duplicate (presumably a duplicate of this card). nid:1584404351614, also tagged as potential duplicate, tests the same thing but focuses on overall tx rather than specifically pharmacologic treatment. I’d be good with a new card being added to handle second-line use of benzos here, but that would need more input from others regarding the need for it as it is not in FA2023 (which I believe this card was originally created from). For now, adding the second-line in nid:1484966178952 would be a more appropriate step in my opinion.
Ya. I am going to get feedback from the other maintainers about this first. I agree. I am not a fan of using FA for guidance on what is needed or not.
I just submitted an edit. Not trying to be difficult. It was just easier with the formatting in this one.