JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.

Anesth Analg 2005;100:604-605
© 2005 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000145328.98283.CE


LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Intrathecal Midazolam: Adverse Effects and Sources of Bias

Louise Walker, MBBS, FRCA

Department of Anaesthesia, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, UK, llwalker{at}ukonline.co.uk

To the Editor:

I was interested to read the paper by Tucker et al. (1), which aims to assess the efficacy of intrathecal midazolam in potentiating the effect of intrathecal fentanyl without causing adverse effects. Unfortunately, as stated in the Discussion in their article, given the sample sizes used it was not possible to make valid comments about the incidence of adverse effects. Therefore, while it is reasonable to comment on analgesic effects, it is not feasible to subsequently draw any conclusions about the relationship between adverse effects and the study drugs as mentioned in their discussion.

In addition, I feel that two other aspects of the study require further clarification, both of which might have introduced bias, and which could invalidate the findings of an enhanced analgesic effect. First, informing patients that the injection may take up to 15 minutes to work could have exerted considerable influence on the time to request for supplemental analgesia, an important potential source of bias.

Second, the authors imply that only those requesting further analgesia more than 15 minutes after intrathecal injection were considered to have "participated completely" in the study. Were those requesting analgesia before this time specifically excluded from the trial, again potentially skewing results?

1. Tucker AP, Mezzatesta J, Nadeson R, Goodchild CS. Intrathecal midazolam: II. Combination with intrathecal fentanyl for labor pain. Anesth Analg 2004;98:1521–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Walker, L.


Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2005 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press