Response to the Letter by Alireza A., et al

Response to letter of Vahle et al.

several important points that deserve comment. The primary objective of our paper was to report the results of a standard two-year rat carcinogenicity study conducted with recombinant full-length human PTH (1-84) to comply with international regulatory guidelines. Dr. Vahle et al. are correct that our study did not directly compare the carcinogenic potential of PTH (1-84) and PTH (1-34), that i...

Response letter regarding the letter to the editors by Brown et al.

We read with interest the letter by Brown and colleagues, which focuses on our model’s assumptions regarding duration of cross-protection against non-vaccine HPV types (20, 30, 50 y and lifetime). Brown et al. begin by highlighting an article reviewing cross protection in different vaccine trials by Malag on et al., which suggests that AS04-adjuvanted HPV16/18 (bHPV, CervarixTM) vaccine-mediate...

Letter to the Editor response: Nygaard et al.

The article by Nygaard and others (2016) proposes that applying batch correction approaches to microarray data from studies with unbalanced designs may inadvertently exaggerate the differences observed. In seeking to illustrate their point, Nygaard and others (2016) utilized a dataset (GSE61901) from a study we published (Towfic and others, 2014) and showed that one analysis pipeline utilizing ...

Public Participation: Methods Matter; A Response to Boaz et al.

A Letter to the Editor on the Article by Farnam et al.−Author's Response

We greatly appreciate the comments of Dr. Rutte et al. regarding our recent study on the effectiveness of sexual counseling models in health care [1]. We agree with them that to find a more cost-effective alternative for standard models, such as Permission, Limited Information, Specific Suggestions, and Intensive Therapy (PLISSIT), we should perform a costeffectiveness study. We will need furth...