Survival after CPR in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants

Douglas Richardson; Michael F. Epstein; Marie McCormick; Linda J. Vanmarter; John North; Richard J. David; Tonse N.k. Raju; David Korones; Michael H. Leblanc; John D. Lantos; Steven H. Miles; William Meadow; Carol B. Stocking

doi:10.1056/NEJM198807213190313

Survival after CPR in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants

Douglas Richardson, Michael F. Epstein, Marie McCormick, Linda J. Vanmarter, John North, Richard J. David, Tonse N.k. Raju, David Korones, Michael H. Leblanc, John D. Lantos, Steven H. Miles, William Meadow, Carol B. Stocking

Center for Bioethics

Research output: Contribution to journal › Letter › peer-review

5 Scopus citations

Abstract

To the Editor: Lantos et al. (Jan. 14 issue)* address an important question in the ethics of caring for sick newborns: When do medical interventions, specifically cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), become futile? If the goal of their study was to provoke discussion, the authors have been successful. However, if the goal was to prove the futility of CPR in very-low-birth-weight infants, the study is so seriously flawed that it cannot support that conclusion. Our criticisms focus on three aspects of the study design: selection of the study population, definition, and inappropriate generalization. The study population is poorly defined and may also.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	176-178
Number of pages	3
Journal	New England Journal of Medicine
Volume	319
Issue number	3
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198807213190313
State	Published - Jul 21 1988

Access

10.1056/NEJM198807213190313

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{7c478c81403d43c190e21568f6e58e28,

title = "Survival after CPR in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants",

abstract = "To the Editor: Lantos et al. (Jan. 14 issue)* address an important question in the ethics of caring for sick newborns: When do medical interventions, specifically cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), become futile? If the goal of their study was to provoke discussion, the authors have been successful. However, if the goal was to prove the futility of CPR in very-low-birth-weight infants, the study is so seriously flawed that it cannot support that conclusion. Our criticisms focus on three aspects of the study design: selection of the study population, definition, and inappropriate generalization. The study population is poorly defined and may also.",

author = "Douglas Richardson and Epstein, {Michael F.} and Marie McCormick and Vanmarter, {Linda J.} and John North and David, {Richard J.} and Raju, {Tonse N.k.} and David Korones and Leblanc, {Michael H.} and Lantos, {John D.} and Miles, {Steven H.} and William Meadow and Stocking, {Carol B.}",

year = "1988",

month = jul,

day = "21",

doi = "10.1056/NEJM198807213190313",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "319",

pages = "176--178",

journal = "New England Journal of Medicine",

issn = "0028-4793",

publisher = "Massachussetts Medical Society",

number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Survival after CPR in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants

AU - Richardson, Douglas

AU - Epstein, Michael F.

AU - McCormick, Marie

AU - Vanmarter, Linda J.

AU - North, John

AU - David, Richard J.

AU - Raju, Tonse N.k.

AU - Korones, David

AU - Leblanc, Michael H.

AU - Lantos, John D.

AU - Miles, Steven H.

AU - Meadow, William

AU - Stocking, Carol B.

PY - 1988/7/21

Y1 - 1988/7/21

N2 - To the Editor: Lantos et al. (Jan. 14 issue)* address an important question in the ethics of caring for sick newborns: When do medical interventions, specifically cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), become futile? If the goal of their study was to provoke discussion, the authors have been successful. However, if the goal was to prove the futility of CPR in very-low-birth-weight infants, the study is so seriously flawed that it cannot support that conclusion. Our criticisms focus on three aspects of the study design: selection of the study population, definition, and inappropriate generalization. The study population is poorly defined and may also.

AB - To the Editor: Lantos et al. (Jan. 14 issue)* address an important question in the ethics of caring for sick newborns: When do medical interventions, specifically cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), become futile? If the goal of their study was to provoke discussion, the authors have been successful. However, if the goal was to prove the futility of CPR in very-low-birth-weight infants, the study is so seriously flawed that it cannot support that conclusion. Our criticisms focus on three aspects of the study design: selection of the study population, definition, and inappropriate generalization. The study population is poorly defined and may also.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0023726972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0023726972&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1056/NEJM198807213190313

DO - 10.1056/NEJM198807213190313

M3 - Letter

C2 - 3386699

AN - SCOPUS:0023726972

SN - 0028-4793

VL - 319

SP - 176

EP - 178

JO - New England Journal of Medicine

JF - New England Journal of Medicine

IS - 3

ER -

Survival after CPR in Very-Low-Birth-Weight Infants

Abstract

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this