Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
The debate concerning the use of albumin in critically ill patients is yet another example of sensible medical practice being hijacked by the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of "evidence based medicine". Since no up-to-date intensive care physician spends his or her time treating "numbers" (eg. the serum albumin), the use of albumin has never been routine in UK or Australian intensive therapy. Furthermore, the suggestion that artificial colloids such as starch are superior (BBC News, St.Thomas's Hospital)ignores their well described blocking effects on the reticulo-endothelial cell system, highly detrimental in the critically ill.
What will be the result of the publication of this misleading meta-analysis and poorly judged editorial comment? The answer is - not much ! Certainly, medical practise will not change. All that will be achieved is a feeling of panic in patients and relatives when they see themselves or their loved ones being treated with albumin. Well done the Cochrane Group - a great use of public funds. We might as well close down all our ICUs (especially in the UK (1) since they don't seem to do much good - at least not in the terms of EBM!
1 Metcalfe MA, Sloggett A, McPhersonK. Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive care units. Lancet 1997;350:7-11.
Dangers of so-called "Evidence Based" Medicine
The debate concerning the use of albumin in critically ill patients is yet another example of sensible medical practice being hijacked by the seemingly unstoppable juggernaut of "evidence based medicine". Since no up-to-date intensive care physician spends his or her time treating "numbers" (eg. the serum albumin), the use of albumin has never been routine in UK or Australian intensive therapy. Furthermore, the suggestion that artificial colloids such as starch are superior (BBC News, St.Thomas's Hospital)ignores their well described blocking effects on the reticulo-endothelial cell system, highly detrimental in the critically ill.
What will be the result of the publication of this misleading meta-analysis and poorly judged editorial comment? The answer is - not much ! Certainly, medical practise will not change. All that will be achieved is a feeling of panic in patients and relatives when they see themselves or their loved ones being treated with albumin. Well done the Cochrane Group - a great use of public funds. We might as well close down all our ICUs (especially in the UK (1) since they don't seem to do much good - at least not in the terms of EBM!
1 Metcalfe MA, Sloggett A, McPhersonK. Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive care units. Lancet 1997;350:7-11.
Competing interests: No competing interests