Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 23 October 2001
- Published on: 3 October 2001
- Published on: 18 September 2001
- Published on: 10 September 2001
- Published on: 4 September 2001
- Published on: 23 October 2001Re: Presentation of sensitivity alone may misleadShow More
Dear Editor,
We thank Dr Gabrielle Laing for her comments regarding our study.[1] Specificity is indeed valuable, but due to the way we defined our infant cohorts the denominator (total live births minus those infants with abnormalities) could only be approximated by using the obstetric data from each study hospital during the period of the study. The sensitivity and positive predictive values were presented in...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 3 October 2001Presentation of sensitivity alone may misleadShow More
Dear Editor
Lees et al report that advanced nurse practitioners (ANNPs) are significantly more effective than trainee paediatricians in detecting abnormalities on neonatal examination. This is an important finding but the paper raises some methodological and clinical issues.
The authors report the sensitivity of the examinations. Given the intrinsic trade off between sensitivity and specificity, it would...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 18 September 2001Case for ANNPs is now proven!Show More
Dear Editor
I am reassured by Dr Lee et al’s response indicating that the same secondary screeners worked in both hospitals in their study. I am not so convinced that their interpretation of sensitivity is correct but this does not affect their conclusions, as there is no reason to suspect that the secondary screeners acted differently at the two hospitals. With that information I accept that they have indeed prove...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 10 September 2001Re: Case for ANNPs not yet provenShow More
Dear Editor,
We thank Dr Cliona Ni Bhrolchain for her interest in our study [1] and for the points she raises, but we disagree with her interpretation.
She is correct in noting that the referrals for eye and cardiac abnormalities were routed through senior paediatricians, but wrong to conclude that this would invalidate the results. The same individuals at each hospital performed this senior review, an...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 4 September 2001Case for ANNPs not yet provenDear Editor,Show More
Lee et al compare routine neonatal examinations by SHOs and ANNPs. They claim that ANNPs were more sensitive and equally specific at detecting all three conditions examined. The study proves this however only for hip abnormalities, referred directly by the ANNPs and SHOs for specialist assessment.
Referrals for eye and heart abnormalities were routed through senior paediatricians in both hospi...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.