Letters NICE and thromboembolism

Guideline development group was not in the pocket of pharma

BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e405 (Published 17 January 2012) Cite this as: BMJ 2012;344:e405
  1. Gerard Stansby, professor of vascular surgery1,
  2. Nigel Langford, consultant in acute medicine and clinical pharmacology and therapeutics2,
  3. Donald McBride, consultant orthopaedic and trauma surgeon3,
  4. Peter Walton, patient representative4
  1. 1Northern Vascular Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN, UK
  2. 2Leicester Royal Infirmary, Leicester LE1 5WW, UK
  3. 3University Hospital North Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent, UK
  4. 4National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence CG92 Group, Cheshire, UK
  1. gerard.stansby{at}nuth.nhs.uk

Welfare makes valid observations about the lack of good quality evidence for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism in general medical patients and criticises the use of surrogate end points—in principle, he is right.1 If ample randomised evidence with the end points of fatal bleeds versus fatal embolism had existed we would have used that alone. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guideline group found that, …

View Full Text

Sign in

Log in through your institution

Free trial

Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial