Download PDFPDF
Less IS less: a randomised controlled trial comparing cautious and rapid nalbuphine dosing regimens
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Author’s response to ‘futility of nalbuphine’

    Dear Editor

    Aruni Sen’s evident distaste for nalbuphine seems to have precipitated a somewhat hasty and inaccurate reading of our paper [1].

    Firstly, we did not claim that nalbuphine is an effective analgesic. We did, however, offer empirical evidence that it is effective for many patients –just under half of those treated had a pain score of three or less (‘mild’ pain) on arrival at hospital. Less tha...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Futility of Nalbuphine

    Dear Editor

    Woollard and his colleagues' study on nalbuphine identifies the gap that can exist between research and clinical practice. I resent the claims in this paper that nalbuphine somehow is an effective analgesic.

    Since 1996, I have been receiving patients in my hospital who have been given nalbuphine pre hospital with very little benefit and lot of problem. These patients get grossly inadequate anal...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.