Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes”

Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril... Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2010) 66:839 DOI 10.1007/s00228-010-0843-0 LETTER TO THE EDITORS Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes” Robert Hofmann Received: 16 April 2010 /Accepted: 12 May 2010 /Published online: 5 June 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010 The article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of 6. “In about 50% of patients (age 80±0.2 years; range 73– racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people 93 years), in the loperamide group during the study with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes” by Gallelli et period, 4 days of treatment were ineffective”; about al. [1] raises a lot of concerns i.a.: 50% comprises 16 or 17 patients. Even if all but 2 were exactly 80 and the 2 were 73 and 93 years of age, the 1. Despite an intensive search the study could not be located standard deviation would not be 0.2 but 3.7. in any registry, which means the protocol was not 7. It is completely implausible how in 50% of loperamide accessible. The author did not provide any information. patients the treatment was ineffective for 4 days, but at 2. The study is said http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology Springer Journals

Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes”

Download PDF
1 page

Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes”

Abstract

Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2010) 66:839 DOI 10.1007/s00228-010-0843-0 LETTER TO THE EDITORS Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes” Robert Hofmann Received: 16 April 2010 /Accepted: 12 May 2010 /Published online: 5 June 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010 The article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of 6. “In about 50% of...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/remarks-and-questions-on-the-article-prospective-randomized-double-orEkaybOdR

References (1)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by Springer-Verlag
Subject
Biomedicine; Pharmacology/Toxicology
ISSN
0031-6970
eISSN
1432-1041
DOI
10.1007/s00228-010-0843-0
pmid
20526590
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2010) 66:839 DOI 10.1007/s00228-010-0843-0 LETTER TO THE EDITORS Remarks and questions on the article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes” Robert Hofmann Received: 16 April 2010 /Accepted: 12 May 2010 /Published online: 5 June 2010 # Springer-Verlag 2010 The article “Prospective randomized double-blind trial of 6. “In about 50% of patients (age 80±0.2 years; range 73– racecadotril compared with loperamide in elderly people 93 years), in the loperamide group during the study with gastroenteritis living in nursing homes” by Gallelli et period, 4 days of treatment were ineffective”; about al. [1] raises a lot of concerns i.a.: 50% comprises 16 or 17 patients. Even if all but 2 were exactly 80 and the 2 were 73 and 93 years of age, the 1. Despite an intensive search the study could not be located standard deviation would not be 0.2 but 3.7. in any registry, which means the protocol was not 7. It is completely implausible how in 50% of loperamide accessible. The author did not provide any information. patients the treatment was ineffective for 4 days, but at 2. The study is said

Journal

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology – Springer Journals

Published: Jun 5, 2010

There are no references for this article.