Authors’ response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional? | Thorax

Subscribe
Log In More

Log in via Institution
Log in via OpenAthens

Log in using your username and password
For personal accounts OR managers of institutional accounts

Username *

Password *

Forgot your log in details?Register a new account?
Forgot your user name or password?
Basket
Search More

Search for this keyword

Advanced search

Article info

PostScript

Correspondence

Authors’ response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?

Free

Authors

Emmylou Beekman Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands The Research Centre for Autonomy and Participation for Persons with a Chronic Illness, Zuyd University, Heerlen, The Netherlands PubMed articles Google scholar articles
Ilse Mesters Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands PubMed articles Google scholar articles
Rik Gosselink Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium Department of Respiratory Rehabilitation and Respiratory Division, University Hospital Leuven, Leuven, Belgium PubMed articles Google scholar articles
Onno C P van Schayck Department of Family Medicine, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands PubMed articles Google scholar articles
Rob A de Bie Department of Epidemiology, CAPHRI School for Public Health and Primary Care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands PubMed articles Google scholar articles

Correspondence to Emmylou Beekman, Department of Epidemiology, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht 6200 MD, The Netherlands; E.Beekman{at}maastrichtuniversity.nl

Citation

Beekman E, Mesters I, Gosselink R, et al

Authors’ response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?

Thorax 2015;70:86-87.

Publication history

Received September 3, 2014
Accepted September 4, 2014
First published September 23, 2014.

Online issue publication

September 01, 2022

Article Versions

Previous version (16 August 2016).
You are viewing the most recent version of this article.

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.

Copyright information

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions