|
1-4 of 4 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
RE: snakebite
|
Reply
|
|
by venom on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These articles are all linked under the links section of the site.
Next to the "Venomous News Items" click 'view more' then enter pinak into the search box.
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=238776
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=200811#
http://www.arabnews.com/?page=9§ion=0&article=86516&d=18&m=9&y=2006
Is that what you are looking for?
|
| |
|
RE: snakebite
|
Reply
|
|
by Chris_Harper on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Pinak article was reviewed by site managers and other medical consultants, and was found to have too many problems to publish. Below is a list of issues that were pointed out by Ian D. Simpson of the W.H.O. Snakebite Treatment Group on the "Venomlist" email listserv:
===================================================
Some observations on the article:
1. No 'knowledgeable' doctor in India ever gives 120 vials of ASV. 30 is the maximum in India.
2. There are no haemotoxic kraits but this is a common misconception
3. The first aid is laughable.
4. We are told 16 developed ptosis and 29 had CT.10 minutes. Highly suspect!
5. By their own admission they are giving 1-5 vials of ASV to mild envenomings. There are no signs of envenomation
6. 38 patients were treated with ASV when at max there MAY be 44 envenomations, if you take their criteria for envenoming
7. I notice they are disciples of Harrisons in their grading scale for ASV. Be objective if you get it to review Bob ;)
8. Only around 50% of the tablet applications were non placebo.
==========================================
Based on popular agreement, we are unable to publish the article.
Chris Harper, webmaster
|
| |
|
RE: snakebite
|
Reply
|
|
by LarryDFishel on June 11, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't have the credentials my Mr. Simpson, but I would also point out a few things:
Table IV a)
Type of snake
Snake 60
Other 14
But later in the paper:
Viper 59
Cobra 14
Krait 2
Which is it? What does IV a) actually mean and why does it only add up to 74?
And more generally, in spite of all the data reported about the victims, all the useful stuff is missing.
Which victims were treated with this product?
What criteria was used to decide which recieved it?
How long did each victim take to recover (broken down by treatment if not individually)?
What complications occurred in each case?
I can only come to one of two conclusions:
1) This is the most carelessly prepared paper I've seen since Junior High or
2) All the iportant info was left out because it doesn't support the conclusion.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
