Statistical analyses compared responses between (1) ESID and focused AAAAI respondents click here and (2) ESID and general AAAAI respondents. The comparison between focused and general AAAAI respondents has been reported previously [5]. Differences in responses between groups were assessed using χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests for categorical data where appropriate. All data were analysed using STATA version 11·0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). Statistical significance was declared with P-values < 0·05. There were 123 responses to our questionnaire, which was a 27·3% response rate and therefore higher than the 13·5% response rate to the AAAAI survey, although the total number of respondents

was greater in the AAAAI survey, in keeping with the larger membership [5]. The higher response rate may be due, in part, to a smaller community of immunologists within ESID or a greater sense of commitment to PID among the ESID membership. In both instances, the questionnaires had relatively low response rates overall. This reflects the general finding that there are lower

responses to e-mail and internet surveys than postal mail surveys [6]. The covering letter from an organizational leader that accompanied the ESID survey may, in part, account for the higher response NVP-AUY922 cell line rate. The disadvantage of low response rates is the risk of substantial non-response bias, but this is likely to be the same for each group. In order to understand the nature of individual respondents generally, information on the length of time since medical graduation and on geographical location of respondents was requested. ESID

respondents Edoxaban had a very similar distribution to the AAAAI respondents (Table 1), in terms of age or length of medical practice. ESID is an international organization and although it was a requirement to be a member of ESID to participate in this questionnaire, there are ESID members located outside Europe. Among the 123 ESID respondents, 105 (85·4%) were located within Europe (Table 2 and Appendix B); the United Kingdom had the largest representation (26 respondents, 21·1%), reflecting the relatively high number of PID centres in the United Kingdom. In addition, six respondents (4·9%) were from the Middle East and 11 (8·9%) from other countries (Table 2 and Appendix B). Non-response bias is a limitation of this present study, as so few questionnaires were returned for analysis. We attempted to minimize response bias by ensuring anonymous responses, as respondents may have otherwise felt pressured to answer with the more ‘socially acceptable’ answer rather than their true beliefs, especially when it comes to patient care and following guidelines. Because the mode of administration was an internet questionnaire, it is conceivable that younger members might have been more apt to respond.