Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 6 December 2005
- Published on: 28 November 2005
- Published on: 6 December 2005Authors' response to KromhoutShow More
The Editor,
We appreciate Dr. Kromhout’s comments regarding our article “Air samples versus biomarkers for epidemiology”[1] and are pleased that he supports our recommendation that both air samples and biomarkers be collected whenever possible. Kromhout raises three points in his letter. First, he suggests that our conclusion that biomarkers tend to be better surrogates for exposures than air samples might have b...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 28 November 2005Air samples versus biomarkers for epidemiology: not so straightforwardShow More
Dear Editor,
Sir, the recent paper by Lin et al.[1] in the November issue of the journal was a thought provoking piece of work. In their paper the authors try to prove the theoretically derived hypothesis that biomarkers of exposure have smaller variance ratios and would typically provide less biased surrogates of exposure compared to air measurements. Although I entirely agree with the theoretical part of this s...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.