PEDIATRICS Vol. 97 No. 3 March 1996, pp. 438-439
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by ABMAN, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by KINSELLA, J. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by ABMAN, S. H.
Right arrow Articles by KINSELLA, J. P.

In Reply: Inhaled Nitric Oxide Trials: "Vive la différence!"

STEVEN H. ABMAN MD1 and JOHN P. KINSELLA MD1

1 Sections of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine and Neonatology, Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine and Children's Hospital, Denver, CO 80218-1088

Dr Davidson misinterprets our recent commentary on the pathophysiology of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) and potential therapeutic role of inhaled nitric oxide (I-NO) as suggesting the lack of a need for multiple studies that investigate different questions regarding its efficacy. In contrast, we clearly state that "multicenter studies play vital roles in improving clinical care, and the absence of such studies may lead to the inappropriate use of ineffective or harmful therapies."