Responses

PDF
Pain in neonates during screening for retinopathy of prematurity using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and wide-fi eld digital retinal imaging: a randomised comparison
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  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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:
    Further evidence in support of the eyelid speculum as the cause of distress during screening for ret

    dear editor,

    Many procedural interventions remain a burden as they result in pain or discomfort in neonates. Adequate management of pain necessitates an integrated approach. Such an approach should also include the use of the most effective methods to perform a given procedure. [1] We therefore appreciate the paper on the randomized comparison between binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) and wide-field digit...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.