Skip Navigation

American Journal of Epidemiology 2004 160(3):215-216; doi:10.1093/aje/kwh205
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Platt, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, M. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Platt, R. W.
Right arrow Articles by Kramer, M. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Copyright © 2004 by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Platt et al. Respond to the Two Invited Commentaries

Robert W. Platt1,2 , K. S. Joseph3, Cande V. Ananth4, Justin Grondines1, Michal Abrahamowicz2 and Michael S. Kramer1,2

1 Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
2 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
3 Perinatal Epidemiology Research Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
4 Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Brunswick, NJ.

Received for publication May 17, 2004; accepted for publication May 18, 2004.

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

We are delighted that our proposed alternative approach to analyzing fetal and infant mortality (1) has stirred up such vigorous and thoughtful discussion (2, 3). Our approach is based on alternative denominators (i.e., fetuses at risk), which, in our view, has a sound biologic and clinical underpinning. . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related articles in Am. J. Epidemiol.:

A Proportional Hazards Model with Time-dependent Covariates and Time-varying Effects for Analysis of Fetal and Infant Death
Robert W. Platt, K. S. Joseph, Cande V. Ananth, Justin Grondines, Michal Abrahamowicz, and Michael S. Kramer
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 199-206. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  

On the Definition of Gestational-Age-specific Mortality
Yin-Bun Cheung
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 207-210. [Abstract] [FREE Full Text]  

Invited Commentary: What’s So Bad about Curves Crossing Anyway?
Mark A. Klebanoff and Kenneth C. Schoendorf
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 211-212. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]  

Invited Commentary: Analysis of Gestational-Age-specific Mortality—On What Biologic Foundations?
Allen J. Wilcox and Clarice R. Weinberg
Am. J. Epidemiol. 2004 160: 213-214. [Extract] [FREE Full Text]