Responses

This article has a correction. Please see:

Download PDFPDF
In neonates requiring intravascular volume resuscitation is the use of gelofusine safe and efficacious?
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  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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:
    Gelofusine and NEC – an inappropriate conclusion

    Sir,

    The Archimedes offering by Khashu and Balusubramaniam [1] contains an overstatement of the evidence from our Cochrane Review [2] (Early volume expansion for prevention of morbidity and mortality in very preterm infants) in suggesting in their 'Clinical Bottom Line' that "Weak evidence suggests an increased risk of necrotising enterocolitis with use of Gelofusine in neonates”. We had cautioned against over i...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Re: Gelofusine and NEC - a misleading conclusion

    Dear Dr.Richmond,

    Thankyou for your e letter.

    In the relevant review by Osborn and Evans, (2004) subgroup analysis: Gelatin based plasma substitute versus FFP, the authors clearly state under secondary outcomes:

    The rate of NEC was significantly higher (RR 4.92, 95% CI 1.44, 16.80) in infants who received the gelatin based plasma substitute.

    We agree that analysis 5.11 demonstrate...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Gelofusine and NEC - a misleading conclusion

    Sir,

    The Archimedes offering by Khashu and Balusubramaniam contains a serious error as well as a somewhat eccentric spelling of gelofusine. They suggest in their 'Clinical Bottom Line' (bullet point 3) that "Weak evidence suggests and increased risk of necrotising enterocolitis with use of Gelofuscine (sic) in neonates (Grade B)". In fact there is no such evidence, weak or otherwise.

    Analysis 05.11 in...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.