Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016
- Published on: 22 March 2016Lung function and low birth weightShow More
Dear Editor
Dr Anand still refuses to quote our work accurately there was of course a difference between those preterm children who had received ventilatory support and those who had not, but this difference was almost entirely explained, in multiple regression, by birthweight. Hence their conclusions largely support our 1989 study.
Yours faithfully
Professor Michael Silverman
...Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 22 March 2016Lung function and respiratory health in adolescents of very low birth weightShow More
Dear Editor
We thank Professor Silverman for his comments on our paper.
In the Discussion section of our paper, we inadvertently stated ‘ventilatory support’ instead of ‘respiratory support’ and this may have accounted for some of the misunderstanding that arose. Our definition of respiratory support was any form of supplementary oxygen, continuous positive airway pressure or mechanical ventilation [1] and w...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 22 March 2016Lung function and low birth weightShow More
Dear Editor
At the risk of being accused of raising a trivial issue, I would simply like to ask authors to quote accurately from references within their articles. I am concerned in particular about the study of the respiratory outcome of children of very low birthweight reported recently by Anand and colleagues.[1] They quote the results of a similar study of younger children, which we reported some years ago in...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.