Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Advertisement
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Letters

Author's response

Nat Wright
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (505): 623-624.
Nat Wright
Leeds Community Drug Treatment Services, Leeds. E-mail:
Roles: Clinical Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: n.wright@leeds.ac.uk
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

We welcome the letter by Paul Driscoll and were disappointed, yet not surprised to read of the increased number of consultations, hospital appointments and increased distress to patients, families and carers as a result of urgent facsimile advice to change prescribing practice. We would encourage both the primary care profession and the prescribing regulatory authorities to learn from this episode, and agree with Driscoll that clear guidance should suggest appropriate alternatives with the appropriate supporting evidence.

Regarding the letter by Wilcock, we always suspected that although only claiming generalisability of our findings to the Leeds area, that the picture we described would be representative of the national picture. Despite the obvious attractions of the interocular test, which are obviously in the eye of the beholder (excuse the pun), we felt it important to apply scientific and research methodological rigour to our study. Whereas Wilcock has given us some excellent descriptive data (and we do hope that the BJGP affords him space of a whole figure for a small letter) we do prefer to use comparative statistics wherever possible. Such statistics in the form of a time series analysis can account for any natural seasonal variation which can be missed by the interocular method. Comparative statistics are also both more sensitive and specific to detect small yet significant changes. Such changes can be missed by the naked eye. However, on this topic we feel that the most important point is that there is no evidence that thioridazine is more cardiotoxic than any other anti-psychotic medication. The current evidence base would suggest that all antipsychotic medication should be prescribed with caution to the elderly and those with pre-existing heart disease or those with behavioural disturbance where there could be a tendency or iatrogenic overdose in an over enthusiastic attempt to control behaviour.

  • © British Journal of General Practice, 2004.
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 54 (505)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 54, Issue 505
August 2004
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Author's response
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Author's response
Nat Wright
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (505): 623-624.

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Author's response
Nat Wright
British Journal of General Practice 2004; 54 (505): 623-624.
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Two-tiered medicine: the increasing disparity in medical care in the UK
  • MRCGP Recorded Consultation Assessment — the hidden fourth construct
  • Prostate-specific antigen testing and opportunistic prostate cancer screening — CAP intervention
Show more Letters

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242