Does this sentence make sense? Do I need commas anywhere. Please help

There are no filing defects visualized that would be consistent with a pulmonary embolus in the region of profusion abnormality on the ventilation profusion scan.

The sentence is grammatically correct, Sage, and no commas are needed. We'd suggest that the sentence be re-written, however. What do you think of this version? ... The ventilation profusion scan showed no evidence of pulmonary embolism.

Hmmm, that's an interesting sentence, Sage. While I am in nursing education now, my clinical background is pulmonary nursing. That sentence looks like it belongs on a V/Q scan report. Oh, and of course you meant "filling" and not "filing."

quote:

There are no filing defects visualized ...

Do you mean seen rather than visualized? The latter is ambiguous, for it can mean "seen in one's mind", that is, imagined or conceptualized visually.

quote:

Originally posted by Sage:

There are no filling defects visualized that would be consistent with a pulmonary embolus in the region of profusion abnormality on the ventilation profusion scan.

If the writer of this careless report actually wishes to be understood, he/she would be better employed in correct language and spelling. I assume the writer intended:

There are no filing defects seen consistent with a pulmonary embolus in the region of the perfusion abnormality on the ventilation perfusion scan.

Even this is ambiguous. It implies there is an abnormality on the scan, and yet fails to say what it is or might be, other than a pulmonary embolus.
Unfortunately this sort of careless reporting bedevils some medical practices and can easily cause mistakes in interpretation and consequent treatment.
Forgive my critical words that betray that I have or had a vested interest in the best practice of Medicine.
PS despite carefully writing FILLING for FILING x3, it still appears as the latter. A hiccup in the system?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: pearce,