Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong

In a recent Letter to the Editor, Armstrong raises concern that the design of the study reported by Six et al. was not consistent with the product label for treatment of Amblyomma americanum, since fluralaner was not re-administered 56 days after the initial treatment. The Authors disagree with this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Six, Robert H., Young, David R., Myers, Melanie R., Mahabir, Sean P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Letter to the Editor
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2142-4
_version_ 1783232054209544192
author Six, Robert H.
Young, David R.
Myers, Melanie R.
Mahabir, Sean P.
author_facet Six, Robert H.
Young, David R.
Myers, Melanie R.
Mahabir, Sean P.
author_sort Six, Robert H.
collection PubMed
description In a recent Letter to the Editor, Armstrong raises concern that the design of the study reported by Six et al. was not consistent with the product label for treatment of Amblyomma americanum, since fluralaner was not re-administered 56 days after the initial treatment. The Authors disagree with this assessment and confirm that the design was appropriate, and therefore the results and conclusions for the entire study period are valid.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5406881
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54068812017-04-27 Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong Six, Robert H. Young, David R. Myers, Melanie R. Mahabir, Sean P. Parasit Vectors Letter to the Editor In a recent Letter to the Editor, Armstrong raises concern that the design of the study reported by Six et al. was not consistent with the product label for treatment of Amblyomma americanum, since fluralaner was not re-administered 56 days after the initial treatment. The Authors disagree with this assessment and confirm that the design was appropriate, and therefore the results and conclusions for the entire study period are valid. BioMed Central 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5406881/ /pubmed/28446205 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2142-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor
Six, Robert H.
Young, David R.
Myers, Melanie R.
Mahabir, Sean P.
Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title_full Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title_fullStr Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title_full_unstemmed Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title_short Response to the Letter to the Editor by Rob Armstrong
title_sort response to the letter to the editor by rob armstrong
topic Letter to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5406881/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446205
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13071-017-2142-4
work_keys_str_mv AT sixroberth responsetothelettertotheeditorbyrobarmstrong
AT youngdavidr responsetothelettertotheeditorbyrobarmstrong
AT myersmelanier responsetothelettertotheeditorbyrobarmstrong
AT mahabirseanp responsetothelettertotheeditorbyrobarmstrong

Ejemplares similares