I see what you mean, quoted here: “There are one to five PCAs arising from the ophthalmic artery, one in 3%, two in 48%, three in 39%, four in 8%, and five in 2% of eyes studied.”
What do you think about adding this fact to the extra section, rather than changing the whole card? Seems like 2-3 is a better approximation, with some extra info saying 1-5 is possible.
What BCSC say? The card is mentioning this paragraph but it is about long PCA: “The ophthalmic artery lies inferior to the optic nerve. The CRA and, usually, 2 long posterior ciliary arteries branch off from the ophthalmic artery after it enters the muscle cone at the annulus of Zinn.”
I didn’t find anything about PCAs in section 2, they mentioned either short or long.
I mean this is more of a “what is the philosophy of this deck” question. If the goal is that the cards should never be wrong, then go 1-5. If the goal is to give the reader the best approximation then change it to 2-3.
I know that I would be confused if the answer was 2-3, but then the extra info is it can also be 1-5.
Maybe an inverse of this would be more suitable, for example writing 1-5 as the answer, but adding that the most common variants are 2-3 in the extra section?
Or fuck it, even writing down literally all the percentages in the extra info section.
@txe I agree with your contention