Neurol India Home 
 

AUTHORíS REPLY
Year : 2015  |  Volume : 63  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 1007--1008

Authors' reply

Anirban Ghosh1, Amlan Kanti Biswas2, Avinandan Banerjee3,  
1 Department of Medicine, ESI-PGIMSR and ESIC Medical College, Joka, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
2 Department of Medical College and Hospital, IPGME and R, Kolkata, West Bengal, India
3 Department of Nephrology, IPGME and R, Kolkata, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:




How to cite this article:
Ghosh A, Biswas AK, Banerjee A. Authors' reply.Neurol India 2015;63:1007-1008


How to cite this URL:
Ghosh A, Biswas AK, Banerjee A. Authors' reply. Neurol India [serial online] 2015 [cited 2020 Aug 4 ];63:1007-1008
Available from: http://www.neurologyindia.com/text.asp?2015/63/6/1007/170109


Full Text

Sir,

We would like to thank the commentators for the interest they have shown in our article and also their appreciation. We would like to address their concerns as follows.

It is a fact that epidemiological studies can be divided into 2 types: (1) Observational, and (2) Experimental. Observational study again can be subdivided into 2 types based on whether only observations are described or any hypothesis is being tested: (1) Descriptive, and (2) Analytical. Analytical observational studies can again be subdivided into 3 major types based on time sequence and sampling procedures used to collect data: (1) Analytic cross sectional, (2) Case control, and (3) Cohort study.[1] I hope it is clear from the above classification that a cross sectional study can be descriptive or analytic depending upon the parameters tested. Our study was an observational study (analytic cross sectional) testing the association of metabolic syndrome and inflammation with dementia in the elderly population. It involved measurement of both exposures and outcome, and thereby tested the hypothesis on the association between exposures and outcome.

The term "prospective" was included in our article to meet the query of one of the reviewers who wanted us to specifically include a clarification in the article regarding the prospective/retrospective nature of data collection and study [2]We have already mentioned upfront in the limitations section that a longitudinal study is definitely a more suitable option in determining the causal effects of the individual factors. It is an established fact that a cross sectional study is inherently poorer in terms of determining causal relationships between exposures and outcomes. We have only put forward some statistically significant associations found in our study on a comparatively less researched aspect in India. A larger multi-centric longitudinal study over a larger period of time with more number of parameters and including subjects from community as well as hospital would definitely focus more light on the clinical implications of these associations and address these unresolved issues.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1"Observational Studies." AFMC Primer on Population Health; The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada Public Health Educators' Network. Available from: http://phprimer.afmc.ca/Part2-MethodsStudyingHealth/Chapter5AssessingEvidenceAndInformation/Observationalstudies. [Last accessed on 2015 Oct 07]. License: Creative Commons BY-NC-SA.
2Ghosh A, Biswas AK, Banerjee A. A study on cognitive decline with respect to metabolic syndrome and inflammation in elderly Indians. Neurol India 2015;63:537-541.