Responses

Download PDFPDF
Data from UK genitourinary medicine clinics, 2006: a mixed picture
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  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed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]
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:
    The KC60 and the future

    Dear Editor,

    What will become of the KC60? In the October 2007 edition of this journal. Hughes et al (1) reported on the KC60 returns from genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics for 2006. They comment in their conclusion that diagnoses made outside GUM are not included, which is clearly a major deficiency if we are using the KC60 as an epidemiological surveillance tool.

    Some community data does find a way in....

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.