• Users Online: 141
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

Table of Contents
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 54  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 376-377

Author's reply

Associate Professor, Community Medicine Department, PDU Medical College, Rajkot-360 001, Gujarat, India

Date of Web Publication19-Feb-2018

Correspondence Address:
Rajesh K Chudasama
Associate Professor, Community Medicine Department, PDU Medical College, Rajkot-360 001, Gujarat
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0972-9062.225859

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Chudasama RK. Author's reply. J Vector Borne Dis 2017;54:376-7

How to cite this URL:
Chudasama RK. Author's reply. J Vector Borne Dis [serial online] 2017 [cited 2021 Apr 19];54:376-7. Available from: https://www.jvbd.org/text.asp?2017/54/4/376/225859

Thank you for reading our article with such a keen interest. We would like to reply with our possible explanations for the queries raised.

As we have stated in our methodology section, only the samples received by the Microbiology Department at PDU Government Medical College, Rajkot were included in the study. These also included the samples from patients of other PHCs, CHCs of Rajkot as well as other districts of Saurashtra region. Hence, it may be noted that the total number of samples (4366) which we have quoted is not representative of the NVBDCP data, since it does not include all the samples tested in Rajkot and other quoted districts in the study. The NVBDCP data include all the districts of Gujarat, which was not the case in our study. Hence, the data available at national level for the mentioned districts were different from our study.

Additionally, the case reporting was higher from Rajkot, because it was the sample collection site, hence, number of the samples received from the parent district would naturally be more compared to other districts. There are also other sentinel sites for dengue sample collection in Saurashtra region which were not included in this study. So, the final number and percentage of dengue cases were different from the one reported by NVBDCP. It was very clearly written in the text that 61.8% dengue cases were reported from Rajkot district (1114/1802) and the remaining included other districts as shown in Table 2 also. The Figure 2 indicates district-wise reporting of percentage positivity distribution of dengue cases in Saurashtra region which corresponds to 43.5% for the Rajkot district (1114/2563).

The data forms which we received at the laboratory were not mentioning the diagnosis of DHF or DSS and hence, we have not mentioned or labeled any positive case with same. This is the reason, we have not mentioned their further management part. As we have clearly stated that the study was purely hospital-based and only samples received at laboratory were used in the study, we have not visited any site or any residential area of the districts. Hence, we were not in a position to mention any thing about the vector or their density or any query related to that. As we have included only samples received at the laboratory, we admit that it allows biased approach, however, this limitation may be considered in other study plans from our institute. We do accept that our study has focused and limited approach to hospital data with almost no funding and hence, field data including vector, its density and environmental settings can be included in future study. Finally, we are very thankful to Kar et al who read this article with such a keen interest and suggested us many other things which we were unable to include in this study. We will definitely consider other aspects to be included in the study which were suggested by the readers.


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

  In this article

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded182    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal