Responses

Download PDFPDF

Lung deposition of aerosol—a comparison of different spacers
Free
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Re: Spacers and holding chambers: Not the last word, we hope

    Dear Editor

    Dr Mitchell is concerned that the methodology used in our study does not simulate the release of aerosol from a metered dose inhaler (MDI). As discussed in the article, the method of aerosol delivery in our study differs from that of a MDI but as the delivery system was kept constant and the particular spacer varied, a valid comparison of the efficacy of different spacers could be made.[1] This deli...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Spacers and holding chambers: Not the last word, we hope

    Dear Editor:

    Zar and colleagues[1] compared home-made spacers and two commercially available valved holding chambers (VHCs) for the treatment of children with acute asthma. We acknowledge that the practice of using empty drink bottles is common in some countries (by either necessity or choice). We, as a manufacturer of one of the VHCs that was evaluated, are highly concerned about the support to the hypothesi...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Should use of home-made spacers be incorporated into guidelines for asthma management?

    Dear Editor

    Zar et al[1] found that lung deposition of aerolised technetium-99DTPA inhaled via modified 500 ml plastic bottle was higher compared to a Babyhaler in both young and other children. There was no difference in lung deposition when a mask was used. Though other workers[2] have recommended the attachment of facemasks to treat patients of all ages.

    In another study[3] children aged 5 to 13 years...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.