Submit a manuscript Sign up for article alerts Contact us


Latest comments

Table 2 footnote (Ian Paul, 01 August 2014)

Please note that the modified measures were indeed confirmed, but we did not notice our typographical error prior to publication.  The footnote should read: "*Modified measure" read full comment

Comment on: Paul et al. BMC Pediatrics, 14:184

See our YouTube 'intervention' video we are using in our pre-post YouTube study (Denise Harrison, 04 July 2014)

Following our systematic review of YouTube, the CHEO (Ottawa, Canada) and University of Ottawa research team produced and posted our own YouTube video showing evidence-based pain management strategies for infants during immunization. Following a 12-month period, we will conduct a follow-up review of posted YouTube videos showing infants being immunized to ascertain the impact of our YouTube video. See     read full comment

Comment on: Harrison et al. BMC Pediatrics, 14:134

Aluminium in infant formulas (Chris Exley, 22 October 2013)

Your readers may be interested to learn that following the publication of our data Vietnam has measured the aluminium content of infant formulas imported into Vietnam from the UK and they have found values in the range 3 - 3.4 mg/kg. Values which are HIGHER than the majority of those reported in our study. read full comment

Comment on: Chuchu et al. BMC Pediatrics, 13:162

may be a special situation of him. (suhair othman, 18 September 2013)

I believe , before considering it a recrudescence , it will be worthy to consider 3 things:
1- is this infat has a congenital immunosuppression as well?
2- is it a recrudescence or a reinfection ? from the mother for example?
3- does preterms need an extended course longer than 6 -8 wks of treatment? .. read full comment

Comment on: El-Sayed et al. BMC Pediatrics, 13:142

An alternate perspective on creating NICU growth charts (Reese Clark, 05 August 2013)

We respect the important contributions that Dr. Fenton and colleagues have made in their recent papers (1, 2) and we submit this letter to make several... read full comment

Comment on: Fenton et al. BMC Pediatrics, 13:59

Importance of Pertussis Vaccination (Christian T. K.-H. Stadtlander, 20 August 2012)

I read with interest the article by Hope et al. [1] who conducted a cross-sectional study of pertussis vaccination of child care workers in Australia. Through interviewing the directors of child care centers, the authors found that 63% of centers participating in the study (i.e., 202/319) kept records of staff vaccinations, while 58% of centers with records (117/202) reported that less than half of their staff members were vaccinated. Furthermore, the study revealed that 74% of centers (125/170), which regularly updated records, did this only when a staff member notified them about vaccinations. Hope et al. [1] concluded that better monitoring and higher levels of vaccination would help reducing the risk of pertussis cases and outbreaks in Australian child care centers. This study is... read full comment

Comment on: Hope et al. BMC Pediatrics, 12:98

Letter to Editor "The efficacy of different postoperative fluid therapy given at low maintenance rate in preventing hyponatremia of potential clinical significance: a stopped randomized non-blinded trial" (Rafael Tomas Krmar, 15 August 2012)

Dear Editor, We recently started a non industry-funded randomized non-blinded clinical study [ISRCTN43896775], whose research protocol has been previously published in this Journal (1). The major objective of this single-centre based study was to evaluate whether the post-appendectomy prescription of either hypotonic or near-isotonic fluid therapy given at low maintenance rate in otherwise healthy children with normal post-operative plasma sodium (p-Na+) are equally effective in maintaining p-Na+ within the normal range throughout the 24-h period after surgery. A second objective was to determine water and electrolyte-balance following the administration of the investigational parenteral maintenance fluids as well as to investigate known regulatory hormones involved in the homeostatic... read full comment

Comment on: Fläring et al. BMC Pediatrics, 11:61

Authors' response to the comment "ADHD and FASD" (Swati Biswas, 28 June 2012)

Thank you very much for your interest in our work and bringing up this important issue. The data that we used for this study (NCSH) didn't have any information on prenatal exposures so even though we are aware of importance of those exposure variables, we couldn't use them in our analyses. The cross-sectional nature of our data has been mentioned as a limitation in the paper. read full comment

Comment on: Lingineni et al. BMC Pediatrics, 12:50

ADHD and FASD (Bruce Ritchie, 11 June 2012)

Prenatal exposure to alcohol is a major factor in ADHD, with ADHD co-occurring more than 90% of the time with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. I am concerned that prenatal alcohol exposure was not a factor considered in this study. In Canada, 37% of babies have been exposed to binge drinking of 5 or more drinks per occasion on multiple occasions during the pregnancy. Another 42% have been exposed to 1 to 4 drinks of alcohol multiple times during the pregnancy. Only 21% of females giving birth do not drink alcohol. There is no known safe level of alcohol exposure during pregnancy. The most vulnerable time is the first trimester. The pregnancy may not have been confirmed for three or more months. More than half of the pregnancies are unplanned. Alcohol crosses the placental barrier and is a... read full comment

Comment on: Lingineni et al. BMC Pediatrics, 12:50

Tocilizumab in JIA (Isidro Villanueva, 31 May 2012)

April 27... read full comment

Comment on: Kemper et al. BMC Pediatrics, 12:29

Errata for Mushtaq et al. BMC Pediatrics 2011, 11:114 (Muhammad Umair Mushtaq, 07 March 2012)

Since the publication of our article, we have noted a typographical error in the final published version, for which the corresponding author accepts full responsibility. Page reference is to the final PDF version.

Page 3, Results (sentence 10, lines 16-17): "Mean (SD) BMI was 20.7 (5.02) kg/m2..." should read "Mean (SD) BMI was 16.0 (3.0) kg/m2...¿

M.U. Mushtaq, et al. read full comment

Comment on: Mushtaq et al. BMC Pediatrics, 11:114

Error in rates of SGA in Table 1 (Tanis Fenton, 10 October 2011)

The correct numbers and rates of SGA (small size for gestational age) are:
Gest age # %
23-27 2 3.9%
28-31 3 2.3%
32-34 7 3.5%
35-36 15 12.3%
Preterm 27 5.3%
Term 0 0%
read full comment

Comment on: Fenton et al. BMC Pediatrics, 11:76

dominant effect of protein (Peter Woolf, 17 March 2011)

I'm curious about the protein composition of the two diets. As you show in Table 1, the beef diet adds 13 or 19.5 g of protein for the 6-12 and 13-18 month range, while the cereal diet adds only 3.07 or 4.60 for each group.

RDA values for protein for infants up to 12 months are 13-14 g/day while for 1-3 years old is 16 g/day. In this case, the beef is providing 100% or more of the infant's RDA of protein, while the cereal is providing only ~20%.

The role of dietary protein on linear growth is well established when protein is limiting--which is likely to be the case here.

It would be interesting if in the study you also measured/estimated the protein intake per infant in both groups in each location. This would help to tease out the role of... read full comment

Comment on: Krebs et al. BMC Pediatrics, 11:4

New email (Anand Reddi, 11 March 2011)

Anand Reddi's email address is anand(dot)reddi AT gmail(dot)com or anand(dot)reddi AT ucdenver(dot)edu read full comment

Comment on: Reddi et al. BMC Pediatrics, 7:13

Interesting paper (Jonas Ludvigsson, 14 January 2011)

I often work in the pediatric emergency unit and this is something I have been thinking about. Interesting to find that a visit to the emergency department was not associated with an increased risk of infection in children.
Jonas F Ludvigsson, Sweden read full comment

Comment on: Quach et al. BMC Pediatrics, 11:2

ignoring 100ys of independent research (Lucija Tomljenovic, 23 September 2010)

The regulatory authorities have been successful in their strategy of ignoring independent research, ever since 1911.

“These studies have convinced me that the use in food of aluminium or any other aluminium compound is a dangerous practice. That the aluminium ion is very toxic is well known. That aluminized food yields soluble aluminium compounds to gastric juice (and stomach contents) has been demonstrated. That such soluble aluminium is in part absorbed and carried to all parts of the body by the blood can no longer be doubted. That the organism can "tolerate" such treatment without suffering harmful consequences has not been shown. It is believed that the facts in this paper will give emphasis to my conviction that aluminium should be excluded from food” WJ Gies... read full comment

Comment on: Burrell et al. BMC Pediatrics, 10:63

Chris is right (Qiao Niu, 16 September 2010)

I think the concern of Chris and his collegues is reasonable, the problem raised by them is common over the world. I hope it can be taken into consideration, emphosized and resolved by authorities and producers. read full comment

Comment on: Burrell et al. BMC Pediatrics, 10:63

Complacency and Regulation of Aluminium in Food (Chris Exley, 15 September 2010)

In spite of the clear results and recommendations of our study the Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK has not made any official comment regarding our findings. The Food Safety Act of 2007 (updated in 2008) specifically states under article 5 that infant formulas should not contain anything which might 'endanger the health of infants and young children'. The Chief Scientist at the FSA, Andrew Wadge, responding to my enquiry on his blog has said that the aluminium content of most infant formulas are within the tolerable weekly limit (TWI) of 1 mg/kg body weight, set by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives,20-29 June 2006, Rome. He concedes that there are no regulatory requirements for aluminium in food. He does not mention that the TWI set by the aforementioned committee is... read full comment

Comment on: Burrell et al. BMC Pediatrics, 10:63

Spectrographic murmur analysis (Vladimir Kudriavtsev, 17 August 2010)

Reader may want to review another publication from BMC on the same subject
BioMedical Engineering OnLine 2007, 6:16
"Heart energy signature spectrogram for cardiovascular diagnosis"
Article specifically addresses issue of the accuracy of the method utilized in the present paper. read full comment

Comment on: Noponen et al. BMC Pediatrics, 7:23

A Disapponting Study (Beverley Chalmers, 17 June 2010)

This comment jointly authored by Beverley Chalmers (DSc(Med); PhD)and Janusz Kaczorowski, (PhD).

It is gratifying to see a publication emerging utilizing the data collected by the Maternity Experiences Survey. This major research program was conducted by the Maternity Experiences Study Group of the Canadian Perinatal Surveillance System of the Public Health Agency of Canada in collaboration with Statistics Canada.

It is disappointing, however, to note the errors and omissions that this particular manuscript includes. The issue of predicting exclusive breastfeeding at 6 months after birth is an extremely important one for both mothers and babies globally and in Canada. For this reason, some clarification of this BMC Pediatrics report is needed. These include:
... read full comment

Comment on: Al-Sahab et al. BMC Pediatrics, 10:20

Response to: Hausdorff WP, Hoet B, Schuerman L: Do pneumococcal conjugate vaccines provide any cross-protection against serotype 19A? BMC Pediatr 2010, 10:4. (Peter Paradiso, 21 April 2010)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The article by Hausdorff et al. [1] is a compilation of available published data on cross-protection for serotype 19A afforded by serotype 19F in pneumococcal conjugate vaccine formulations. As pointed out by the authors, when 7-valent pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV7; Prevenar; Pfizer Inc) was developed, it was hoped that the protective anticapsular antibody induced by the 19F and 6B conjugates would provide cross-protection for serotype 19A and 6A disease, respectively. While some cross-protection has been observed against serotype 6A disease, from a practical perspective, regardless of the “suggestions” from the literature, there has been no impact on 19A disease in countries where PCV7 has been used [2-7]. As pointed out by the... read full comment

Comment on: Hausdorff et al. BMC Pediatrics, 10:4

ppO2 seems to be the key factor (Herb Martin, 13 April 2010)

Presuming for the sake of discussion that treatment is effective.

As the grandparent of an autistic child and a former commercial diver I have great personal interest in this subject, and knowledge of diving gases and physiological effects.

After a serious Internet search, I can find no evidence, nor any serious claim, of any proposed mechanism for these effects EXCEPT for the increased partial pressure of O2 (ppO2).

Given that an oxygen concentrator can produce 95% O2 (perhaps as low as 80% actually delivered) and that the treatment dives of this study are only to 1.3 ATA -- or in home devices up to 1.6 ATA -- then we need to seriously consider the idea of treatment with O2 at standard pressure.

1.3 - 1.6 with only slightly increased O2... read full comment

Comment on: Rossignol et al. BMC Pediatrics, 9:21

The Authors Respond: Results of the Study are Positive (Daniel Rossignol, 26 October 2009)

We again thank Drs. Mintz, Mink, and Wiznitzer for their comments on our article reporting our double-blind controlled study demonstrating the effectiveness of hyperbaric treatment in children with autism. We address their additional concerns as follows:
1. Since the CGI-I is a scale of improvement, the only scores obtained for the physician CGI-I scale were generated at the end of the study. To obtain these scores, the physician rated the child’s performance at the end of the study compared to the physician’s baseline exam of the child. This evaluation generated a score for the change in overall functioning compared to baseline for each child. The statistical analysis then compared the scores in the treatment group to the scores in the control group, and therefore... read full comment

Comment on: Rossignol et al. BMC Pediatrics, 9:21

Response to the Authors’ Response: Results of the study are NOT positive as claimed (Mark Mintz, 12 August 2009)

We thank Drs. Rossingol et al. for responding to our posted comment about our concerns with their study’s methodologies, results and conclusions. The authors’ response has not changed our analyses and opinions, and in particular has not changed our conclusion: it is our opinion that the paper does not support the use of hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) for children with autism. In particular, we invite the authors to explain or comment on the following:

1. In the authors’ response, they have not clarified how a physician-completed Clinical Global Impression-Improvement scale (CGI-I) can be used at baseline and then again after 40 treatment sessions. [In the Methods section, it states that physicians completed the CGI-I after 40 treatment sessions, but in the... read full comment

Comment on: Rossignol et al. BMC Pediatrics, 9:21

Cost-effective Oxygen Delivery (James (Undisclosed), 24 June 2009)

Dr. Rossignol writes:

"We are confused as to why the commentators state, without support, that the treatment we have evaluated would demonstrate “harm” to the patient, as we are not aware of any evidence of harm that has come to a child using hyperbaric treatment within the parameters used in this study."

This confusion is understandable, but unfounded. A quick review of the commentators' actual words and context reveals that no such statement, that the treatment evaluated by Rossignol et al. would demonstrate harm, was made.

Dr. Rossignol also notes:

"In conclusion, we maintain our position that hyperbaric treatment using the parameters in this study is a cost-effective and promising medical adjunctive intervention to... read full comment

Comment on: Rossignol et al. BMC Pediatrics, 9:21