Authors' reply to Elliman and Bedford and Duncan and colleagues

Authors' reply to Huffman and colleagues.

1Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School, Ipswich, MA 01938, USA; 2Department of Social Science, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; 3Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health Department of Statistics, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA; 4Therapeutics Initiative, Departments of Anesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics and Medicine, University of Br...

Authors' reply to Lin and colleagues.

1Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Central Hospital, Helsinki, Finland; 2Department of Surgical Sciences, Section of Orthopaedics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden; 3Department of Hand Surgery, Tampere University Hospital, Tampere, Finland; 4Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; 5...

Authors' reply to Rappuoli and colleagues, Black, and Glennie and colleagues.

Reply to Venturelli and colleagues.

TO THE EDITOR: The author team of our recently published manuscript (1) on improved single muscle fiber quality in the oldest-old thank Dr. Venturelli and colleagues (5) for their thoughtful appraisal of our work. Furthermore, this group is to be commended for their efforts examining force-generating capacity in the oldest-old, both in vitro and in vivo, as a means of providing additional insig...

Authors' reply to Grant and Garland and to Bolland and colleagues.

We agree with Grant and Garland that, although existing ecological studies support the findings of our meta-analysis of observational studies, further work—especially that involving well powered randomised intervention studies—is needed. 2 However, the respective pooled risk ratios that we reported by combining the primary and secondary prevention cohorts are based on indirect comparisons (only...