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.
Editor
Professor Hunter's article regarding the use of neostigmine to reverse neuromuscular block at the end of anaesthesia in which muscular blockade has been used was both informative and timely. Whilst Professor Hunter's view is that neostigmine should still be routinely used, it is noticeable that the picture chosen to illustrate the article showed several syringes, not one of which was labelled as containing neostigmine. Is this an example of editorial balance, or an attempt at subliminal messaging by an editorial team that disagree with the Professor's views?
Competing interests:
No competing interests
27 October 2012
James C Watts
Consultant in Anaesthesia and Critical Care
east lancashire NHS Trust
Anaesthetic department, Royal Blackburn Hospital, Blackburn
Re: Antagonising neuromuscular block at the end of surgery
Editor
Professor Hunter's article regarding the use of neostigmine to reverse neuromuscular block at the end of anaesthesia in which muscular blockade has been used was both informative and timely. Whilst Professor Hunter's view is that neostigmine should still be routinely used, it is noticeable that the picture chosen to illustrate the article showed several syringes, not one of which was labelled as containing neostigmine. Is this an example of editorial balance, or an attempt at subliminal messaging by an editorial team that disagree with the Professor's views?
Competing interests: No competing interests