The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Salzburg statement on shared decision making
Abstract
The effect of light and bisulfite on infusion solutions containing epinephrine (2 μg/mL), bupivacaine hydrochloride (1 mg/mL), fentanyl (2 μg/mL) and sodium edetate (0.18 μg/mL) was investigated. Solutions were made isotonic using sodium chloride, and they contained either 1.82 μg/mL sodium metabisulfite or no metabisulfite at all. The infusions were stored in polypropylene infusion bags (550 mL) and were subjected to light from a xenon burner with a specter similar to sunlight behind a glass window. The contents of epinephrine, bupivacaine and fentanyl were determined with stability indicating methods using a HPLC system. In two identical experiments epinephrine was demonstrated to be more stable under irradiation in the absence of sodium metabisulfite (89.3% and 91.3% remaining of initial concentration) than in its presence (64.5% and 60.1% remaining). Bupivacaine and fentanyl showed no degradation as a function of light exposure, and the stability was not affected by the presence or absence of bisulfite. After two weeks exposure to natural light (Oslo, 60°N, March) the content of epinephrine was 45.0% of the initial concentration in the solutions containing bisulfite and 95.6% in the solutions without bisulfite (n = 3). The relationship between various concentrations of bisulfite and the photostability of three epinephrine solutions (2 μg/mL, 20 μg/mL and 110 μg/mL) were tested. The results indicated that approximately equimolar concentration of epinephrine compared to bisulfite, or bisulfite in some excess, was least favorable to the stability of epinephrine. A possible explanation for the photodestabilizing effect of bisulfite can be the conversion of superoxide radicals (O2−) to highly reactive hydroxyl radicals (·OH) by bisulfite. From these results it can be concluded that solutions containing epinephrine and bisulfite should be protected from light not only during storage but also during use in cases where the infusion time amounts to several days. An alternative, wherever possible, would be to omit bisulfite in the solutions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare
Stiggelbout, A. M., Weijden, T. V. D., Wit, M. P. T. D., Frosch, D., Legare, F., Montori, V. M., Trevena, L., & Elwyn, G. (2012) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.e256 · Cited by 1,014
Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
Bomhof-Roordink, H., Gärtner, F. R., Stiggelbout, A. M., & Pieterse, A. H. (2019) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763 · Cited by 532
Traditional, complementary and alternative medicine use in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review
James, P. B., Wardle, J., Steel, A., & Adams, J. (2018) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000895 · Cited by 494
Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care
Slade, M. (2017) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20412 · Cited by 422
Davis, E. L., Oh, B., Butow, P. N., Mullan, B. A., & Clarke, S. (2012) · The Oncologist · doi:10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0223 · Cited by 346
Metadata
- Authors
- Seminar, S. G.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2011-03-22
- Volume
- 342
- Issue
- mar22 3
- Pages
- d1745-d1745
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1949758479
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 24.46
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Salzburg statement on shared decision making. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.d1745
- The paper
- Seminar, S. G. (2011). Salzburg statement on shared decision making. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d1745
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.