I thank Dr Jenkinson, for his expressed interest in the study.1 Most of the magazines he refers to are naturally not common reading in Norway. However, we have our equivalent titles. The data set of 15 magazines is really too small to begin to look for differences. The thought is an interesting and relevant one though. Table 1 in our study shows that most of the magazines gave similar numbers of colonies (range = 4–115; average 22) and only one or two were clearly dirtier than the others.2 If I remember correctly, the worst offender was a magazine for boat owners (showing water doesn't always wash clean).
REFERENCES
- 1.Jenkinson R. Dirty magazines [letter] Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55:147–148. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Charnock C. Swabbing of waiting room magazines reveals only low levels of bacterial contamination. Br J Gen Pract. 2005;55:37–39. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]