Authors' response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?

E. Beekman^*, I. Mesters, R. Gosselink, O.C.P. van Schayck, R.A. de Bie

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/Letter to the editor › Academic › peer-review

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	86-87
Journal	Thorax
Volume	70
Issue number	1
Early online date	23 Sept 2014
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2015

Access to Document

10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268

Cite this

@article{44908960bdb646098d57eb365ff1e2c6,

title = "Authors' response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?",

author = "E. Beekman and I. Mesters and R. Gosselink and {van Schayck}, O.C.P. and {de Bie}, R.A.",

year = "2015",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268",

language = "English",

volume = "70",

pages = "86--87",

journal = "Thorax",

issn = "0040-6376",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Authors' response: what determines which 6MWT is conventional?

AU - Beekman, E.

AU - Mesters, I.

AU - Gosselink, R.

AU - van Schayck, O.C.P.

AU - de Bie, R.A.

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

U2 - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268

DO - 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2014-206268

M3 - Comment/Letter to the editor

C2 - 25249006

SN - 0040-6376

VL - 70

SP - 86

EP - 87

JO - Thorax

JF - Thorax

IS - 1

ER -