Responses

Download PDFPDF

Obstetric and non-obstetric surgery during pregnancy: A 20-year Danish population-based prevalence study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/rapid-responses/].
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Clarification

    Since the publication of the article, it has come to the authors’ attention that the flowchart (Figure 1) can be misleading. According to the flow chart, 1 738 358 pregnancies ending as an abortion were excluded due to missing gestational age or gestational age >140 days. This seems to be a large proportion of missing data, which could question the validity of the coding of abortions in the patient registry. It was, however, not at missing data problem but was due to technical reasons. In the raw data, a unique abortion could be recorded more than once. Removing duplicates is therefore a regular part of the data cleaning process when working with these data. In our data, 1 733 799 abortions were removed because they were duplicates, which would have been the correct designation in the flow chart rather than missing gestational age. Of notice, the final number of pregnancies included in the analyses was correct.

    Anne Staub Rasmussen
    Christian Fynbo Christiansen,
    Niels Uldbjerg,
    Mette Nørgaard

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.