Which paragraph reads better? Please help me solve an argument:
-Upon cardiac auscultation, a metallic click replacing the S1 sound over the mitral area was heard, indicative of a prosthetic valve. S2 was normal. Faint systolic murmurs could also be heard. No other abnormal sounds were heard upon auscultation of other areas.
-Upon cardiac auscultation over the mitral area, a metallic click was heard replacing the S1 sound indicating a prosthetic valve. S2 was normal. Faint systolic murmurs could also be heard. No other abnormal sounds were heard upon auscultation of other areas.
They're both a bit shit.
Upon cardiac auscultation, a metallic click replacing S1 was heard over the mitral area. S2 was normal. A faint systolic murmur was also present. No other abnormal heart sounds were detected elsewhere on auscultation.
Yeah but the argument was pretty much about the first sentence only, it pissed me off so bad I could hardly care for the rest 😭
Instead of… "Could also be heard" I would prefer "also were heard". Mind you, I'm not a medical professional, and I understood that if you could hear them, they were heard, but I think were heard is more succinct
I told my friend that too, but she thinks I’m being too nitpicky and dramatic lol. I chose to let her have her way with that one because arguements with her are genuinely so exhausting, but the first sentence is just too much of a flaw for me to ignore and it’s driving me mad that she thinks it’s totally fine.
I'm a metallic click, indicative of a prosthetic valve, puts what the click was indicative of closer to the click.