Responses

Download PDFPDF
Delivery of positive end-expiratory pressure to preterm lambs using common resuscitation devices
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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Delivery of positive end-expiratory pressure to preterm lambs using common resuscitation devices

    I congratulate Dr Thio and colleagues on their study of PEEP delivery in common neonatal resuscitation devices. This study is timely as clinicians look for more refined strategies to support the preterm lung at birth. Such strategies will require a reliance on equipment in the delivery room.
    To allow for interpretation of the findings into the clinical context could the authors comment on the number, and characteristics, of lambs studied, and was this accounted for analysis in Table 1 (for example cluster analysis)? What was the pressure of medical gas supply?

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.