The importance of the equivalence trial design for comparison of rectal quinine treatment with other quinine applications

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Volumn 46, Issue 11, 2008, Pages 1795-1796

  Eisenhut, Michael ^a  

^a LUTON AND DUNSTABLE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

QUININE;

BRAIN MALARIA; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMA; CONVALESCENCE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG SAFETY; HUMAN; LETTER; MORTALITY; PARASITEMIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADMINISTRATION, RECTAL; ANTIMALARIALS; DRUG ADMINISTRATION ROUTES; HUMANS; MALARIA; QUININE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 43949113330     PISSN: 10584838     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/588054     Document Type: Letter

References (4)

1. Achan J, Byarugaba J, Barennes H, Tumwine JK. Rectal versus intravenous quinine for the treatment of childhood cerebral malaria in Kampala, Uganda: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2007; 45:1446-52.
2. Silamut K, Phu NH, Whitty C, et al. A quantitative analysis of the microvascular sequestration of malaria parasites in the human brain. Am J Pathol 1999; 155:395-410.
3. Eisenhut M, Omari AAA. Intrarectal quinine for treating Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005:CD004009.
4. Jones B, Jarvis P, Lewis JA, Ebbutt AF. Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. BMJ 1996; 313:36-9.