Responses

See original article:

Tongue tie
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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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:
    Prejudice against test weighing, like tongue-tie division, should be re-assessed

    Dear Editor,

    I read with interest the dialog stemming from Hall and Renfrew's article about tongue tie, and the interest in designing trials to empirically measure the effects of tongue-tie upon breastfeeding. I have photographed many tongue-tied babies. It is my impression that the degree of lift and ability to sustain lift of the tongue provides information about tongue mobility. Measuring lift is described in t...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Tongue Tie- Further observations

    Dear Editor

    Having read the recent responses to the Hall and Renfrew article, I would like to add certain observations.

    1. The degree of tethering does not equate to the degree of sucking difficulty

    2. The sucking mechanism for the breast is different to that of bottle feeding

    3. We should not ignore the views of mothers, although subjective, as we do not always have the means of objective meas...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Authors' reply: Tongue-tie - more research needed
    • David M B Hall, Paediatrician
    • Other Contributors:
      • David Hall and Mary Renfrew.

    Dear Editor,

    We welcome the interest in our review of tongue tie. Hansen, MacKinlay and Manson confirmed the observation of others that division of tongue tie is a simple and safe procedure. We agree with Griffiths that although more remains to be learned about tongue tie, the clinical practice and research described by him and his colleagues have sufficient support to justify it and work on this topic is cert...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Tongue-ties and breastfeeding

    Dear Editor,

    The humble tongue-tie, like the foreskin, generates enormous quantities of hot air, with little evidence to support it. I welcome the decision by the Archives of Disease in Childhood to commission a Perspective on Tongue-tie in the same month that NICE (1) has issued its positive guidance on the same topic.

    Hall and Renfrew begin by stating their bias. Mine is that the Archives of Disease i...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Ankyloglossia intervention in outpatients is safe - our experience
    • Richard Hansen, Experienced Senior House Officer in Paediatrics
    • Other Contributors:
      • Gordon A. MacKinlay, William G. Manson

    Dear Editor,

    Hall and Renfrew rightly describe the literature with relation to ankyloglossia as containing "little high quality objective evidence," they also describe the difficulties in study methodology in this setting with particular reference to concealing the diagnosis from parents in control studies. With regards to intervention, they note that “…frenulotomy in the newborn is a low risk minor procedure, performed...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.