Responses

Download PDFPDF
048
FEASIBILITY AND COMPARISON OF NON-INVASIVE HEMODYNAMIC DEVICES IN THE EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT; USCOM VS NICCOMO
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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Bland-Altman comparison of haemodynamic monitoring methods; not simply a matter of black and white.

    This comparison of non-invasive haemodynamic devices, although valuable, demonstrates some methodological aspects of the Bland-Altman method that should be considered to ensure the accuracy of any proposed conclusions.

    The statistical minimum for comparison of two medical device measurement methods includes reporting mean ?SD values for both methods, correlation, and Bland-Altman bias and precision, mean % diff...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.