HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Electronic Letters to:

Technical Briefs: Ulrich Missler, Martin Wiesmann, Philipp Ehlermann, Michael Tronnier, Axel Nötzold, Elke Steinmeier, and W. Graham Wood Validation and Comparison of Two Solid-Phase Immunoassays for the Quantification of S-100B in Human Blood Clin Chem 2000; 46: 993-996 [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

Electronic letters published:

More Questions Raised

Steven Hoare   (14 April 2004)

More Questions Raised 14 April 2004
Steven Hoare, intensive care nurse NHS Send letter to journal: Re: More Questions Raised nursesteve{at}hotmail.com Steven Hoare	Sir, In your conclusion you write that your study may act as a prognostic tool for an already existing neurological injury. Yet earlier in the article you also say that the serum level of s100 protein gives no idea about the site or the clinical effects of any cerebral injury. Could you clarify for me if this; is / may be, a specific marker of cerebral injury and therefore of potential use in determining the patients prognosis? I have read earlier articles by Raabe (Stroke. 1998;29:2363-2366.) that seemed to suggest that levels of S-100 b may provide an early indicator of likely lasting neurological damage. There are obvious benifits to being able to determine long term lasting damage as we in intensive care sometimes nurse patients who never regain independence due to neurological damage from various causes. If we knew at an early stage who these patients were then we could target our limited resouces to those patients most likely to benifit. Please give me your views on the likely use of serum values now and in the future.