You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Correspondence
Author response to Dr Wise’s letter
  1. Lidia Casas1,2,3,4,
  2. Aina Espinosa2,3,4,5,
  3. Alícia Borràs-Santos2,3,4,
  4. José Jacobs6,
  5. Esmeralda Krop6,
  6. Dick Heederik6,
  7. Benoit Nemery1,
  8. Juha Pekkanen7,8,
  9. Anne Hyvärinen7,
  10. Martin Täubel7,
  11. Jan-Paul Zock2,3,4,9
  1. 1 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Environment and Health, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
  2. 2 Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain
  3. 3 CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
  4. 4 University Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain
  5. 5 Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain
  6. 6 Division of Environmental Epidemiology, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  7. 7 Department of Health Protection, National Institute for Health and Welfare (THL), Kuopio, Finland
  8. 8 Department of Public Health, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
  9. 9 Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (NIVEL), Utrecht, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Lidia Casas, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Centre for Environment and Health, KU Leuven, Leuven 3000, Belgium; lidia.casasruiz{at}med.kuleuven.be

https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2015-103255

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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.

    We welcome the opportunity to respond to the concerns of Dr Wise1 from the American Chemistry Council, regarding our report on the association between childhood infections and use of bleach at home.2

    Dr Wise expresses disappointment with ‘design flaws’ and ‘the speculative nature of our conclusions’. We do not agree that our study was badly designed, and the limitations have been carefully considered and discussed in our original paper. We relied on questionnaires for both exposure and outcome, but this does not imply flawed results or bad study design. Obviously, future studies are needed with better exposure and outcome assessment to further address the causal …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors LC wrote the response letter and all the other co-authors revised it and gave their consent for submission.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles