 |
 |

Data vs Opinion, Phenytoin vs Fosphenytoin
The Saga Continues
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159:2631-2632.
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
IN THE IDEAL WORLD, the practice of medicine would be entirely evidence based, with decisions on how to use new medications being based on well-designed, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. One need not look further than the multibillion dollar nutritional-supplement and "natural-treatments" market to know that a considerable amount of "medical products" are consumed without a good scientific basis. The use of parenteral phenytoin, particularly in regard to fosphenytoin sodium, however, is based on good, sound scientific principles.
In the study by Meek et al,1 the authors present a rational and well-thought-out algorithm for using parenteral phenytoin products. Undoubtedly, critics of this article will cite 2 major issues when criticizing it. First, they will argue that this study, appearing in a major medical journal, is not "data driven" or evidence based. Second, cynics will no doubt question the role of Parke-Davis, Morris Plains, NJ, the makers of fosphenytoin, as having had influence . . . [Full Text of this Article]
CiteULike Connotea Del.icio.us Digg Reddit Technorati Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
Guidelines for Nonemergency Use of Parenteral Phenytoin Products: Proceedings of an Expert Panel Consensus Process
Patrick D. Meek, Stephanie N. Davis, D. Michael Collins, Barry E. Gidal, Paul A. Rutecki, Aaron H. Burstein, James H. Fischer, Ilo E. Leppik, R. Eugene Ramsay, and for the Panel on Nonemergency Use of Parenteral Phenytoin Products
Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(22):2639-2644.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|