Responses

Download PDFPDF
Options for procedural pain in newborn infants
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Options for procedural pain, current practice in England
    • Hemantha R Balehithlu, Specialist Trainee, Paediatrics
    • Other Contributors:
      • Paul A J Heaton, Andrew M R Fernando

    In her review of options for procedural pain in newborn infants Judith Meek is herself premature in her assertion that "the statement that we are no longer in equipoise over the use of sucrose may be premature..."[1].

    We surveyed current practice and attitudes to procedural pain in English Neonatal Units in 2011 using paper questionnaires sent to the lead clinician in each unit. Replies were received from 102 of...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.