Responses

PDF

A meta-analysis on intravenous magnesium sulphate for treating acute asthma
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Magnesium sulfate and moderate/severe versus severe/very severe asthmatics

    Dear Editor,

    This article addressed a very important question in the field of paediatric emergency medicine. The prevalence of asthma has risen and there are chronic shortages of inpatient beds in many centres worldwide. Therefore, if intravenous magnesium sulfate added to standard therapy reduces admission rates in asthmatics without significant side effects, this would be very welcome information. This me...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Systematic review of magnesium in asthma

    Dear Editor,

    I was very interested to read the meta-analysis of the use of intravenous magnesium in asthma [1] having recently conducted a systematic review on this subject. I was pleased to see that both produced the same primary outcome of a reduction in hospitalisation with an overall number needed to treat (NNT) of four and a good safety profile. However, there were a number of differences that I was somewhat surpri...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.