Letter Conclusions regarding the efficacy of treatments for neuroleptic malignant syndrome should be tempered given poor quality data, regardless of the analysis conducted1 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
Critical Care 2007, 11:413doi:10.1186/cc5786
See related research by Ruelbach et al. http://ccforum.com/content/11/1/R4 and related letter by Brvar and Bunc, http://ccforum.com/content/11/3/415 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. |




on Google Scholar







author email
corresponding author email