【24h】

Author's response

机译:作者的回应

获取原文
       

摘要

We thank Ng et al for their response to our paper.1 They raise the interesting issue of gold standards for the measurement of fever. To our knowledge, there is no such single accepted and universally agreed gold standard. In their review article, they summarise the differences between axillary, rectal, tympanic, and pulmonary artery measures using different types of thermometers, but do not present original data to support their assertion that rectal thermometry represents such a ‘gold standard’.2 We were conscious of this issue when we analysed our data and wrote the paper; for this reason we discussed in our introduction the rationale for why we chose to use both measures of agreement and diagnostic accuracy.
机译:我们感谢Ng等人对我们论文的回应。1他们提出了有趣的发烧金标准。据我们所知,还没有这样一个单一的,公认的金标准。在他们的评论文章中,他们总结了使用不同类型的温度计进行腋窝,直肠,鼓膜和肺动脉测量之间的差异,但没有提供原始数据来支持他们的断言,即直肠测温法代表了这种“黄金标准”。2当我们分析数据并撰写论文时意识到这一问题;因此,我们在引言中讨论了为什么选择同时使用一致性度量和诊断准确性的理由。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号