Also posted over at Paramedicine 101 . Go check out the rest of what is there. In Intravenous drug administration during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial , [1] , [2] I missed some important information. I think I expected more detail to be in the text, than in the charts and figures, so I did not read Figure 2 carefully enough. Regardless of the reason, I did miss some important information. In response, Anonymous left this comment – RM: I was doing some reading on this article and came across your commentary. I am unsure if you will even see this since your blog was posted a few months ago, but I just thought I would clear something up for you and anyone else who reads your commentary. You seem to have done an inadequate job of reading and understanding this article. Yes, I did. Specifically, you state that a major shortcoming of the study is that 10% of the no-IV group received IV medications. You actually go on make a joke about “falling on a IV” as being an unacceptable excuse. Sometimes I think I am funnier than I actually am. If you had read the article closely you would have noticed a perfectly adequate explanation for this, as well as the 18% of the IV med group who did not receive meds. Yes. It is not hidden. It should not have required a close reading, but I did miss both of these. The reason the no-IV did receive drugs was because of ROSC (Return Of Spontaneous Circulation) then subsequent new cardiac arrest (27), hospital admission (13), breach of protocol (5)…45/433=10%. I would argue that 5/433 (1%), is pretty good for a study of this magnitude. I agree.

Original Source of Correction on Intravenous drug administration during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized trial.