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.
BMJ 2004;328:1566-1567 (26 June), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7455.1566-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORThe limitations of the paper on three v five days of antibiotic treatment for pneumonia merit additional emphasis.1 The paper had an inadequate selection of indicators of treatment failure, an insufficiently discriminating treatment comparison (also pointed out by Borja and Rigau (next letter)), insufficient detailing of patients' history, dismissiveness towards caregivers' assessments, deficient survivor data, and difficulties in applying the conclusion of the study to broader populations.
If the conclusion was acted on, predictable deaths might occur, particularly in undiagnosed asthma. Roughly 54 000 people die in Britain each year from complications related to respiratory infections.
Skimping on antibiotics is a contested tactic. False economy is evident when patients are admitted to hospital and intubated for infections that could have been managed less invasively with appropriate antibiotics.
Skimping does not address the need for a new generation of antibiotics. No one seriously doubts that antibiotics are at times
Lynne Wrennall, fellow
University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3BX lynnew@liverpool.ac.uk