This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

MICHAEL K. GEORGIEFF, MD; MARLA M. MILLS, RN; LINDA LINDEKE, PNP; SANDRA IVERSON, PNP; DANA E. JOHNSON, MD, PHD; THEODORE R. THOMPSON, MD
University of Minnesota Hospital and Clinic Box 39 UHMC Harvard Street at East River Road Minneapolis, MN 55455

Am J Dis Child. 1989;143(8):882-883.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

In Reply.—Dr Hack's first point, regarding providing hospitalization data on all very-low-birth-weight infants, including those not seen on follow-up, does not pertain to the interpretation of our study results. As stated in the report, the purpose of our study was to assess growth differences at followup between two cohorts of infants with similar size and degree of illness who were treated 4 years apart. As described in Table 1 of the report, the cohorts were carefully matched for gestational age, weight, and degree of illness at presentation. Presentation of data on infants not subsequently seen on follow-up would serve no useful purpose in elucidating the neonatal factors that influenced follow-up growth rates of those seen.

The second point, regarding the low follow-up rate at 1 year, was a difficult one during analysis of the study results. We carefully stated in the report that there might be selection bias in those children . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?