 |
|
Nomina Sunt Consequentia Rerum: Time for a Change in the Definition of Bronchiolitis?—Reply
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158:403.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
Thank you for the opportunity to reply to the letter from Dr Barbi and colleagues regarding the definition of bronchiolitis. We agree that it is important to have definitions that are consistently used and best reflect the condition. We disagree that we missed this critical issue. In fact, in our discussion we state that "we used a more liberal definition of bronchiolitis"1(p963) and we caution the reader to interpret the results in light of this.
As Dr Barbi et al allude to, the more recent studies on bronchiolitis appear to be limited to the study of infants (younger than 1 year). In our review, 8 of the 14 trials were limited to infants younger than 1 year (5 of 7 inpatient trials and 3 of 6 outpatient studies [patient status was unknown in 1 of the trials]). The trials that included children 2 years and younger were older . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc, FRCPC
Edmonton, Alberta
Lisa Hartling, BScPT, MSc
Edmonton, Alberta
Natasha Wiebe, MMath
Edmonton, Alberta
Kelly Russell, BSc
Edmonton, Alberta
Hema Patel, MD, MSc, FRCPC
Montreal, Quebec
Corresponding author: Terry P. Klassen, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 2C3.67 Walter C. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, Edmonton, Alberta(e-mail: terry.klassen@ualberta.ca).
RELATED ARTICLE
Nomina Sunt Consequentia Rerum: Time for a Change in the Definition of Bronchiolitis?
Egidio Barbi, Elena Neri, and Alessandro Ventura
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2004;158(4):403.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
