It is up to those who provide obstetric care to properly counsel women about the clinical implications of these findings and practice evidencebased medicine. We were delighted that three journals agreed to publish the executive summary simultaneously and would hope that those who perform fetal imaging, radiologists and obstetricians alike, would read this summary. Electronic versions of articles have become the most common way to access articles with less reliance on hard copy journals, so we anticipate there will be wide access to this article. Furthermore, the Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine has a wide readership that includes radiologists and ultrasonographers. The aims of the workshop were to review the current evidence for fetal imaging and the future research agenda. The role of ultrasound laboratory accreditation by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and the American College of Radiology was not a specific focus of the workshop and therefore was not commented upon. Financial Disclosure: The authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Uma Reddy, MD, MPH Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Maryland Alfred Abuhamad, MD EVMS Medical Group, Norfolk, Virginia Deborah Levine, MD Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts George Saade, MD University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, Galveston, Texas

REFERENCE 1. Reddy UM, Abuhamad AZ, Levine D, Saade GR; Fetal Imaging Workshop Invited Participants. Fetal imaging: executive summary of a joint Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Radiology, Society for Pediatric Radiology, and Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound Fetal Imaging Workshop. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1070–82.

VOL. 124, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2014

Editor’s Note: This reply to a letter to the editor is being published concurrently in the October 2014 issue (Vol. 33, No. 10) of Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine.

Repeat Midurethral Sling Compared With Urethral Bulking for Recurrent Stress Urinary Incontinence To the Editor:

In reading the article by Gaddi et al,1 I had concern about the accuracy of the demographic data presented in the article and the resulting discussion and conclusions. In Table 1, only 23.9% of the urethral bulking group was listed as menopausal and only 42.9% of the midurethral sling group was listed as menopausal, despite the same table indicating that 80.6% of the urethral bulking group was aged 50 years or older and 63.3% of the midurethral sling group was aged 50 and older. Because 53.7% of the urethral bulking group was aged 60 or older, it makes it difficult to conclude that 29.8% of the 60 and older group was premenopausal. Given the mean older age in the urethral bulking group as well as the above-noted difference in age distribution, I take issue with the conclusion in the Discussion section, “That is, patients who underwent urethral bulking were older, had lower BMI, and were less likely to be menopausal than those undergoing the midurethral sling.” Financial Disclosure: The author did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Katherine M. Gillogley, MD Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Methodist Hospital and UC Davis Medical Center, Sacramento, California

REFERENCE 1. Gaddi A, Guaderrama N, Bassiouni N, Bebchuk J, Whitcomb E. Repeat midurethral sling compared with urethral bulking for recurrent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2014; 123:1207–12.

In Reply: We appreciate Dr. Gillogley’s comments concerning the menopausal status of our patient cohort.1 On

review of Table 1, there was in fact an error in that the represented data reflect premenopausal rather than postmenopausal status. The revised data are as follows: 76.1% (n551) of the urethral bulking group were menopausal, and 57.1% (n556) of the midurethral sling group were menopausal (P5.01). The data analysis and discussion are based on the correct data. However, this changes our conclusion in that patients who underwent urethral bulking were still older and had lower body mass indexes but were more likely to be menopausal. We apologize for this error. Financial Disclosure: The author did not report any potential conflicts of interest.

Emily L. Whitcomb, MD, MAS Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, Southern California Permanente Medical Group, Irvine Medical Center

REFERENCE 1. Gaddi A, Guaderrama N, Bassiouni N, Bebchuk J, Whitcomb EL. Repeat midurethral sling compared with urethral bulking for recurrent stress urinary incontinence. Obstet Gynecol 2014;123:1207–12. Editor’s Note: Readers may refer to a Correction related to this article on page 842.

Postpartum Venous Thromboembolism: Incidence and Risk Factors To the Editor: We read with great interest the article by Tepper et al1 recently published in your prestigious journal. Both the topic and the sample size make the article interesting for obstetricians and general practitioners. The authors calculate the incidence of postpartum venous thromboembolism by week after delivery, focusing the attention on risk factors involved in increasing risk. The authors conclude that, after adjusting for all covariates, advanced age seems to increase the risk of early postpartum venous thromboembolism whereas cesarean delivery seems to increase both early and late postpartum venous thromboembolism. We already have performed an observational study about postpartum prophylaxis, detecting that pneumatic

Letters to the Editor

837