【24h】

Authors' response

机译:作者的回应

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

We disagree with the correspondents' comment that, since the mean thickness in both the primary and secondary care groups was <=1mm, mortality and morbidity are not particularly relevant endpoints. We presented median and not mean values in our paper. In fact, over 40% of the lesions in each group of our study had a Breslow thickness >1mm. Furthermore, patients can die from melanoma irrespective of the Breslow thickness of the primary lesion, so mortality was the most appropriate primary outcome for ourstudy. Similarly, morbidity, in this case, subsequent hospital attendances, must be included in any analysis where questions of surgical competence are being addressed.
机译:我们不同意记者的评论,因为初级和次级护理组的平均厚度均<= 1mm,因此死亡率和发病率并不是特别相关的终点。我们在论文中介绍了中位数而不是平均值。实际上,在我们研究的每组中,超过40%的病灶的Breslow厚度> 1mm。此外,无论原发灶的Breslow厚度如何,患者均可死于黑色素瘤,因此死亡率是本研究最合适的主要结局。同样,在处理手术能力问题的任何分析中,都必须将发病率(在这种情况下,包括随后的出勤率)包括在内。

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