You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 60, Issue 7
  • Relationship between reduced forced expiratory volume in one second and the risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Responses

Article menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

Lung cancer
Relationship between reduced forced expiratory volume in one second and the risk of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Free
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

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:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 8 August 2005
    Author's reply: what a whopper!
    • Don D. Sin, Medical Doctor
    • Other Contributors:
      • Paul Man, Wen Gan, Samuel Wassawa-Kintu, Peter Pare

    We thank Dr. O'Driscoll for alerting us to an error in the text. The correct figure for the worldwide mortality from lung cancer in 2000 was 0.85 million, not 328 million as originally stated in the article.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 20 July 2005
    What a whopper!

    Dear Editor,

    Wassawa-Kintu and colleagues have performed a useful meta-analysis of the effect of reduced FEV1 on the risk of developing lung cancer. However, the authors, reviewers and editors failed to notice a major error of fact which is repeated in the "Airwaves" section of the journal. They stated in both articles that 328 million people died of lung cancer in 2000.

    The population of the world is abou...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.