This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In her editorial, Dr Fitzgerald¹ discusses the limitations to the generalizability of the findings reported in our article.² Dr Fitzgerald correctly stresses the important issue that an individualized treatment regimen does not apply to the usual population of alcoholic patients admitted to most hospitals in the United States. However, it is not correct to say that only 6% of eligible patients (117 of 2000) were ultimately included in the study since the final inclusion rate was 48.1% (117 of 243, see the article's "Results" section, p 1119).

Because such misinterpretation of the results might reduce the interest of the study, would the journal consider publishing an erratum?

Jean-Bernard Daeppen, MD
Lausanne, Switzerland

1. Fitzgerald F. As the occasion arises: PRN sedative orders in alcohol withdrawal treatment [editorial]. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1093-1094. FREE FULL TEXT 2. Daeppen J-B, Gache P, Landry U, et al. Symptom-triggered vs fixed-schedule doses of benzodiazepine for alcohol withdrawal: a randomized treatment trial. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:1117-1121. FREE FULL TEXT

In reply

I thank Dr Daeppen for the opportunity to clarify my editorial. When I wrote that "Only 117 (6%) of 2000 consecutive patients admitted to the treatment program in Switzerland were ultimately included for analysis in the . . . [Full Text of this Article]