Critical Care

official impact factor 4.60
Search for
Advanced search
Critical Care
Tools
Letter

Conclusions regarding the efficacy of treatments for neuroleptic malignant syndrome should be tempered given poor quality data, regardless of the analysis conducted

Darren M Roberts1,2* and Jason A Roberts3,4

Author Affiliations

1 South Asian Clinical Toxicology Research Collaboration, Medical School, Australian National University, PO Box 5141, Kingston, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 2604

2 Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, The Canberra Hospital, PO Box 5141, Kingston, Australian Capital Territory, Australia, 2604

3 Burns, Trauma and Critical Care Research Centre, University of Queensland, Level 3 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston QLD Australia 4029

4 Departments of Intensive Care Medicine and Pharmacy, Level 3 Ned Hanlon Building, Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Butterfield St, Herston QLD Australia 4029

For all author emails, please log on.

Critical Care 2007, 11:413 doi:10.1186/cc5786

Published: 2 May 2007

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

We read with interest the analysis by Reulbach and colleagues regarding the treatment of neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS) [1]. In this analysis, the effect of various treatments on clinical outcomes from 271 single case reports was reviewed. It was concluded that dantrolene does not seem to be the evidence-based treatment of choice for NMS.