Clinical Chemistry
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 53: 1720-1721, 2007; 10.1373/clinchem.2007.092924
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Clerico, A.
Right arrow Articles by Emdin, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Clerico, A.
Right arrow Articles by Emdin, M.
Related Collections
Right arrow Proteomics and Protein Markers
(Clinical Chemistry. 2007;53:1720-1721.)
© 2007 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Letters to the Editor

The authors of the article cited above respond:

Aldo Clerico1,2,a, Marianna Fontana1, Luc Zyw1, Claudio Passino1,2 and Michele Emdin1

1 Consiglio Nazionale delle, Ricerche Institute of, Clinical Physiology, Cardiovascular Medicine Department and, Cardiovascular Endocrinology Laboratory, Pisa, Italy
2 Scuola Superiore S. Anna, Pisa, Italy

aAddress correspondence to this author at: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Institute of Clinical Physiology Via Trieste 41, 56126 Pisa, Italy. Fax 011-39-0585; e-mail clerico@cnr.it.

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.


To the Editor:

We are grateful to Dr. Christian Mueller for his constructive suggestions regarding our review (1). Actually, area under the curve (AUC) values of brain natriuretic peptide (BNP) and the N-terminal part of the propeptide of BNP (NT-proBNP) (0.85 and 0.80, respectively) assays related to the study by Ray et al. (2) were erroneously inverted, whereas sensitivity and specificity were correctly indicated in Table 2 of our review (1). Nevertheless, we confirm that the conclusions of our review were correct; they were . . . [Full Text of this Article]






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.