Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
The debate about whether we can learn from animals is far
more subtle than the rapid responses to Roberts et al's systematic review of fluid resuscitation after haemorrhage
suggest.
1 2
It depends on the problem and on the species
of the animal; the lessons of comparative medicine are most useful when
the model has sufficient similarities to suggest its relevance and
enough differences to make it informative. Blanket assertions that we cannot learn from animals are naive, but many generalisations about
humans fail when we look at ethnic differences and genetic predisposition.
Several odd points arise in Roberts et al's systematic review.
Firstly, the authors confuse treatment aimed at increasing circulating volume (for example, with solutions based on isotonic sodium) with treatment with hypertonic sodium solutions, whose benefit in shock probably rests on pharmacological properties other than their minuscule and transient impact on circulating volume.
Secondly, the review contains