Respiratory Medicine
Volume 104, Issue 7 , Page 1074 , July 2010

Reply to Hochheggar et al.

Received 20 November 2009

References 

  1. Gevenois PA, De MV, De VP, Zanen J, Yernault JC. Comparison of computed density and macroscopic morphometry in pulmonary emphysema. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152(2):653–657
  2. Muller NL, Staples CA, Miller RR, Abboud RT. “Density mask”. An objective method to quantitate emphysema using computed tomography. Chest. 1988;94(4):782–787
  3. Dransfield MT, Washko GR, Foreman MG, Estepar RS, Reilly J, Bailey WC. Gender differences in the severity of CT emphysema in COPD. Chest. 2007;132(2):464–470
  4. Vestbo J, Anderson W, Coxson HO, et al. Evaluation of COPD longitudinally to identify predictive surrogate end-points (ECLIPSE). Eur Respir J. 2008;31(4):869–873
  5. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography – an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(22):2277–2284
  6. Yuan R, Mayo JR, Hogg JC, et al. The effects of radiation dose and CT manufacturer on measurements of lung densitometry. Chest. 2007;132(2):617–623
  7. Schilham A, Van Ginneken B, Gietema H, Prokop M. Local noise weighted filtering for emphysema scoring of low-dose CT images. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2006;25(4):451–463
  8. Madani A, Zanen J, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Pulmonary emphysema: objective quantification at multi-detector row CT–comparison with macroscopic and microscopic morphometry. Radiology. 2006;2382042196

PII: S0954-6111(10)00105-8

doi: 10.1016/j.rmed.2010.02.027

Respiratory Medicine
Volume 104, Issue 7 , Page 1074 , July 2010

Article Tools