F&N could be accused of being obsessed with the arterial duct, in view of the space we have given in recent months and years to papers about its effects, strategies for its closure, and the competing claims of indomethacin and ibuprofen. The papers submitted to us indicate the importance of the issue to our readership, so we make no apology for commissioning reviews and perspectives to augment the debate about this important and persistent clinical problem. This month, we have both a thought provoking review by Bose and Laughon on the inadequacy of the evidence base for duct closing strategies, and a linked perspective by McNamara and Sehgal. I would also like to draw your attention to another Archives paper that can be found in Online First,1 and a paper by Chorne et al on ducts and neurological morbidity in Pediatrics.2 In the July Fantoms I wrote: “What we need now are some well‐constructed randomised trials of different strategies for duct closure – including conservative management.” At the risk of sounding like a scratched vinyl record, my message hasn't changed.
See pages F424 and F498