You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 266 No. 16, October 23, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Review
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (27)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Intrathecal Therapy in Tetanus

A Meta-analysis

Elias Abrutyn, MD; Jesse A. Berlin, ScD

JAMA. 1991;266(16):2262-2267.


Abstract

Objective.
—To assess the efficacy of intrathecal therapy with tetanus antibody (antitetanus equine serum or human tetanus immune globulin) in neonatal and adult tetanus using meta-analytical techniques.

Data Sources.
—Clinical trials identified by searching MEDLINE and by reviewing bibliographies of published articles.

Study Selection.
—Studies in English with concurrent controls treated without intrathecal therapy.

Data Extraction.
—Data were extracted by one author and verified by the second; conflicts were resolved by discussion.

Data Synthesis.
—No major treatment effect was found in neonatal tetanus when all studies were considered. A benefit was suggested for antitetanus equine serum in adult disease, but this finding should be accepted with caution. Subgroup analyses were limited in power. Methodological difficulties in neonatal and adult trials were common and safety has not been established.

Conclusions.
—Intrathecal therapy for tetanus with either antitetanus equine serum or human tetanus immune globulin is not of proven benefit and should only be given in the context of well-designed, controlled trials.

(JAMA. 1991;266:2262-2267)



Author Affiliations

From the Medical College of Pennsylvania, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Section in Infectious Diseases, Philadelphia (Dr Abrutyn); and the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia (Dr Berlin).


Footnotes

Reprint requests to Veterans Affairs Medical Center, University and Woodland avenues, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (Dr Abrutyn).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Randomised controlled trial of tetanus treatment with antitetanus immunoglobulin by the intrathecal or intramuscular route
de Barros Miranda-Filho et al.
BMJ 2004;328:615.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Comparison of Evidence of Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies
Ioannidis et al.
JAMA 2001;286:821-830.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

NEUROLOGICAL ASPECTS OF TROPICAL DISEASE: Tetanus
Farrar et al.
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 2000;69:292-301.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1991 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.