We are grateful to Professor Ross for giving us the chance to replace some incorrect data and misprints and to clarify insufficient explanations in this article. I will try to answer all of the questions.Q: How many women were approached to take part in the study but declined?A: Twenty-two women declined to take part in the study.Q: What objective criteria were used to enter women into the study?A: The presence of pelvic pain and cervical tenderness (dislocation pain) were used to make a diagnosis of PID.Q: It would be helpful to clarify what the correct numbers are.A: The correct numbers are those in the tables: coil removed, 60; coil not removed, 66.Q: How many patients were recruited to the trial, how many were lost to follow up and how many attended for the assessment at 15 days?A: On-hundred thirty-eight women were recruited, 12 were lost to follow up and 126 were attended for the assessment at 15 days.Q: Do the authors have any information about the number of patients who were infected with gonorrhoea or chlamydia?A: No microbiological data were evaluated.Q: Table 2 suggests that rates of persistent signs, symptoms and abnormal laboratory findings were higher in those who had a coil removed.A: Table 2 shows the recovery ratios (not the presence ratios) of signs and symptoms at the 15th day of treatment.Q: Was the follow up assessment made 15 days after starting or after finishing the antibiotic therapy?A: It was made 15 days after starting the antibiotic therapy.We hope these answers provide clarification and we thank Professor Ross for his interest in our work.19 January 2005
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
Published online: July 31, 2006
© 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
ScienceDirectAccess this article on ScienceDirect
- Comment on the article by Altunyurt, et al. [Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2003;107:81–4]European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive BiologyVol. 171Issue 2
- PreviewThe recent article by Altunyurt et al.  is the first randomised controlled trial assessing whether a coil should be removed in those women who present with pelvic inflammatory disease. It, therefore, has the potential to influence national and international guidelines on the management of pelvic inflammatory disease.