Article Text

PDF
Authors’ response
  1. M Knight1,
  2. C Nelson-Piercy2,
  3. J J Kurinczuk1,
  4. P Spark1,
  5. P Brocklehurst1,
  6. on behalf of UKOSS
  1. 1
    National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
  2. 2
    Guys and St Thomas’ Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
  1. Dr M Knight, National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK; marian.knight{at}npeu.ox.ac.uk

Statistics from Altmetric.com

We thank Dr Ch’ng et al for their interest in our article.1 They raise an interesting point concerning retrospective and prospective studies. We acknowledge in our paper that the study methods we used were different from those used in the original single-centre study by Ch’ng et al. However, we do not agree that our study was retrospective.

UKOSS has a planned programme of studies2; participating clinicians at the 226 collaborating hospitals receive notification of this programme with individual study documentation before the commencement of any study and are asked to identify cases prospectively (ie, in the future). We do ask for retrospective reporting of the clinical details of cases clinicians have prospectively identified, and this is wholly different in methodology from the retrospective study originally conducted by Ch’ng et al. Furthermore, we do not believe that this …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles