LETTER TO THE EDITOR
Year : 2017 | Volume
: 16 | Issue : 1 | Page : 36-
Author Reply
Adegboyega Akere
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State, Nigeria
Correspondence Address:
Adegboyega Akere
Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Oyo State
Nigeria
How to cite this article:
Akere A. Author Reply.Ann Afr Med 2017;16:36-36
|
How to cite this URL:
Akere A. Author Reply. Ann Afr Med [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Oct 23 ];16:36-36
Available from: https://www.annalsafrmed.org/text.asp?2017/16/1/36/202087 |
Full Text
Sir,
I and my co-authors would like to thank the commentator for his interest in our article and the comments he had raised.[1]
First Comment
The diagnostic yield as stated was 74%, this was correct as abnormalities were detected in 185 patients. However, as pointed by the commentator, there was a mechanical error in the analysis of the number of abnormalities as demonstrated in [figure 2]. Now, the error was with the figures, the percentages were correct. So, the correct analysis should be: one abnormality detected in 150 (81.2%) patients, two abnormalities were detected in 33 (17.6%) patients, while 2 (1.2%) had three abnormalities detected.
Second Comment
Increase in the number of patients with haematochezia in the analysis (102) compared to those who had haematochezia as an indication (85) for colonoscopy. The apparent increase in the number of patients observed here was due to the fact that some of the patients had more than one abnormality on colonoscopy and so, there was an overlap. Concerning the pie-chart apparently showing one abnormality per patient, the pie chart was drawn to show the likely cause of haematochezia even in those patients with more than one abnormality at colonoscopy. So, in other words, in those patients with haematochezia and more than one abnormality at colonoscopy, the most likely cause of haematochezia in such patients was what was depicted in the pie chart.
Third Comment
The crude caecal intubation rate was 89.2%, but after adjusting for those patients with obstructing colonic tumours that prevented caecal intubation, the adjusted caecal intubation rate was 95.1%.
There were no complications recorded in any of the patients presented.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
| 1 | Gachabayov M. Comments on: Colonoscopy at a tertiary health-care facility in Southwest Nigeria – Spectrum of indications and colonic abnormalities. Ann Afr Med 2017;16:35. |
|
