Responses

Download PDFPDF
Neonatal endotracheal intubation
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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Endotracheal tube length for neonatal oral and nasal intubation

    Dear editor,

    Kempley et al (1) have recommended the length based on the gestation of the neonates rather than the rule of ‘7-8-9’, which has been being used traditionally over the years. I have read both articles with great interest – excellent review by Wylie’s (2) on neonatal resuscitation published in education and practice of Archives diseases in childhood and Endotracheal tube length for neonatal intubation...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.