Responses

Download PDFPDF

Lung function decline in laboratory animal workers: the role of sensitisation and exposure
Free
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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Authors' Reply
    • Lützen Portengen, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS)
    • Other Contributors:
      • A Hollander, G Doekes, G de Meer, and D Heederik

    Dear Editor

    We would like to thank Dr Preece for his letter.[1]

    He raises the issue that loss of symptomatic workers during follow-up does not explain the absence of a decline in lung function in workers who worked with laboratory animals for more than 4 years, and concludes that lung function decline in short-term employed workers is not sustained. We think that this interpretation of our data is somewhat ove...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Lung function decline in laboratory animal workers

    Dear Editor

    In their recent paper Portengen et al.[1] have made an important contribution to our understanding of laboratory animal allergy. However, they have omitted to draw attention to an observation of clinical importance to occupational physicians.

    They have suggested that the lack of decline in lung function in "experienced" workers may be due to the healthy worker effect. Their suggestion...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.