Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Location, location, location: studying anatomically comparable airways is highly relevant to understanding COPD
  1. Benjamin M Smith1,2,
  2. Eric A Hoffman3,
  3. Stephen Rennard4,
  4. R Graham Barr1,5
  1. 1 Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2 Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
  3. 3 Departments of Radiology, Medicine and Biomedical Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA
  4. 4 Department of Medicine, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska, USA
  5. 5 Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Benjamin M Smith, Presbyterian Hospital, 9E Room 109, Columbia University Medical Center, 630 West 168th St, New York, NY 10032, USA; benjamin.m.smith{at}

Statistics from

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.

We have read with interest Nakano and colleague's thoughtful comments1 on Smith et al 2 and are pleased to offer the following observations.

We believe that a key strength of our paper is that it defines a rigorous sampling strategy to compare airways from matched hierarchical positions within the tracheobronchial tree with control for the known hierarchical gradient in airway dimensions.3 Nakano et al are correct to point out that hierarchical sampling by generation number results in grouping of airways from multiple anatomic locations (eg, segmental and lobar airways); conversely, hierarchical sampling by anatomic location results in grouping of airways from multiple generations.4 It is for this reason that we reported both sampling approaches (tables 2 …

View Full Text

Linked Articles