Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Fig 2 Implies that if FEV1 improves by >=200mls & >=12% from baseline this is consistent with asthma--modified with permission from Burton, an Australian
My understanding is in the UK we used to use the 1997 BTS guidance of >200mls & 15% in FEV1, but we now use the NICE guidance of >400mls increase in FEV1 to determine reversibility.
It's a small point, but as GPs we seem to be bombarded by conflicting guidance.
Re: Investigating asthma symptoms in primary care
Dear Editor
I really enjoyed the Asthma article.
But I wonder can you clarify for me
Fig 2 Implies that if FEV1 improves by >=200mls & >=12% from baseline this is consistent with asthma--modified with permission from Burton, an Australian
My understanding is in the UK we used to use the 1997 BTS guidance of >200mls & 15% in FEV1, but we now use the NICE guidance of >400mls increase in FEV1 to determine reversibility.
It's a small point, but as GPs we seem to be bombarded by conflicting guidance.
Competing interests: No competing interests