Letter to the Editor
Version of Record online: 4 JAN 2010
Copyright © 2009 by the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine
Volume 24, Issue 1, page 7, January/February 2010
How to Cite
Hahn, K.A. (2010), Letter to the Editor. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine, 24: 7. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-1676.2009.0434.x
- Issue online: 4 JAN 2010
- Version of Record online: 4 JAN 2010
We are glad that Dr Gentilini has provided comments to you regarding our report “Masitinib is safe and effective for the treatment of canine mast cell tumors,” published in J Vet Intern Med 2008 November-December;22(6):1301–1309.
In his letter to you, he conveys “disappointment for the numerous mistakes” identified in the report; however, only one has been identified by the authors and it is neither misleading to the reader nor does it misrepresent the work performed or the conclusions drawn.
Dr Gentilini points out the similarities found in the methods paragraph “Determination of Kit Mutation Status” between our report and that of Letard et al (2008). This is because Dr Letard, an employee of AB Science, SA, was commissioned to perform the analyses using similar methodology. His work (reference 10 in our report) was cited by us in the introduction as “Studies by us10….” which includes similar authors (eg, Moussy, Kinet, Hermine, Dubreuil) with proper footnoting of the methods and materials used in the analyses so that the interested reader would have the necessary knowledge to repeat the work if warranted. We regret that the methods paragraph refers to Table 3 of the Letard work instead of referring to Letard et al (2008), but this does not detract from the thoroughness of our description of the methodology, and it does not impact the results or the conclusions provided in the manuscript.
We disagree with Dr Gentilini that Figure 1 is “completely mistaken.” It is quite possible that Dr Gentilini is concerned that the line drawings do not clearly show the difference between solid and dotted lines. Yet, if one clearly follows the text in the figure legend, there are no discrepancies or errors in the figure. The manuscript appropriately refers to each cell in the figure and the results therein.
In summary, we appreciate Dr Gentilini's careful and thorough review of our publication. While we regret the reference to Dr Letard's table in our manuscript, this does not warrant publication of an erratum in the Journal.