Cargando…
PC(20) versus PD(20): Why Change a Scientifically Well-Established and Clinically Relevant Test?
Autores principales: | Amirav, Israel, Newhouse, Michael T. |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Thoracic Society
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6467305/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30640509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201809-1765LE |
Ejemplares similares
-
Reply to Amirav and Newhouse: PC(20) versus PD(20): Why Change a Scientifically Well-Established and Clinically Relevant Test?
por: Kaminsky, David, et al.
Publicado: (2019) -
Reply to Shoemark et al. and to Shapiro et al.
por: Amirav, Israel, et al.
Publicado: (2020) -
More Realistic Face Model Surface Improves Relevance of Pediatric In-Vitro Aerosol Studies
por: Amirav, Israel, et al.
Publicado: (2015) -
Comment on “Optimizing the Delivery of Inhaled Medication for Respiratory Patients: The Role of Valved Holding Chambers”
por: Newhouse, Michael T., et al.
Publicado: (2019) -
Asthma and COVID-19: In Defense of Evidence-Based SABA
por: Amirav, Israel, et al.
Publicado: (2020)