Log on / register
BioMed Central home | Journals A-Z | Feedback | Support | My details
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 email and Jason A Roberts3,4

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

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

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

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

author email corresponding author email

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

Published: 2 May 2007


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.


© 1999-2010 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.