We thank you for the comments and suggestions made. We have carefully read the comments and we add that:
- 1.
In the “Results” section, the progress time of patients until the first consultation (public or private) was defined and we would like to clarify that demographic data, activity by SLEDAI, physical examination and lab data were obtained in the first consultation. This data is clarified again in tables 1 and 2. Likewise, we explained that the outcome data of the patients were (obviously) taken at the last consultation.
- 2.
In the “Results” section, it is explained that 116 patients were assisted in the public healthcare system and 43 in the private area. We also state that the same group of experts assisted both groups; therefore, it is incorrect to infer variability in the treatments, superposition or different periods of treatment.
- 3.
No section of the article mentions that informed consent was required. On the contrary, it is explained that it was not necessary due to the anonymous and retrospective nature of the study.
- 4.
The colleagues are confused about the question of the ethnic group, since this topic is not in the “Results” section, but in the “Discussion” section, and they are quotes from other authors. In addition, they are confused when they affirm it is data from our study, because we are mentioning data from Reveille et al.
We suggest a better reading of this work in order to make better suggestions.
The authors thank Elena Carrera and Liliana Contini for their statistical help (Biometry Unit, Department of Mathematics, School of Biochemistry and Biological Sciences, UNL).
Please cite this article as: Schmid MM, Roverano SG, Paira SO. Réplica al artículo «Comparación de datos demográficos, presentación clínica, tratamiento y desenlace de pacientes lúpicos tratados en un centro público y otro privado de salud en Santa Fe, Argentina». Reumatol Clin. 2015;11:261.
