Abstract
Reply to the Editor:
We have carefully read the comment by the author to our article entitled, “Unilateral inferior turbinate bone hypertrophy: Is it compensatory or congenital?” Am J Rhinol Allergy 27:255–259, 2013.
First, we congratulate the author for his attention to detail and strenuous effort. We have discovered that we have made a few unintentional errors in Tables 2 and 3. First, in Tables 2 and 3 the number of subjects with deviation in the adult age group was mistakenly written as 41 instead of 129 and that number must be 129 as it correctly appeared in Table 1 and the abstract. The value of interturbinate ratio (IR) of the posterior segment of the IT in the Dev-Ad is correctly written as 14.8 ± 7.50 so there is not a mistake.
Demographic features of the patients
The corrected table with the three erroneous numbers (in boldface type)—1.62 ± 0.51 was erroneously written two rows up
The corrected table
We repeated the statistical analysis and rechecked statistical significance and reproduced the identical statistical significance results as it appears in the article. We visited the mentioned website and checked our results (www.fon.hum.uva.nl/Service/Statistics/2Sample_Student_t_ Test.html). Then, we discovered that two numbers in Table 2 were written erroneously and that was the source of the inconsistencies that the author mentioned in detail (see Tables 2 and 3; the erroneously written numbers are in boldface type).
In our opinion there are a few unintentional numeric mistakes in Tables 2 and 3 that can be corrected for the sake of statistics; however, these trivial corrections would not change the results or the conclusion of the article and, therefore, in our opinion are not mandatory. Although trivial they are, we are very sorry for mistakes.