Abstract
Dear Editor:
We, the authors of the article “Pulmonary Function of Young Muslim Males During the Month of Ramadan” (Roy & Bandyopadhyay, 2016), are glad to receive the positive criticism in the form of a Letter to the Editor. The lacunae highlighted in the letter are appreciated with the following clarification:
Point 1. The season and/or about temperature and humidity during their study period. It is true that Ramadan can occur at any season, leading to some difference in observation between studies reported from different countries where climatic conditions may vary due to geographical location. Consequent effects of daytime fasting will definitely influence the finding. But in the Discussion section we have mentioned the finding of the present study, and accordingly, we have proposed a probable reason in support of the occurrence of the finding. However, it would have been better if we mentioned the range of temperature variation during the course of the study instead of writing “narrow span.” However, it is clarified here that the variation of temperature and relative humidity recorded during the study was 29°C to 33°C and 75% to 87%, respectively, which did not impose any discomfort to the subjects, and therefore, the chance of existence of any effect of fatigue, dehydration, or any other climatic stress possibly does not arise in our study (Roy & Bandyopadhyay, 2016).
Point 2. It may be considered as a shortcoming of the study that the time of the last taken meal before the spirometry test was not recorded in any of the trials. However, the participants of the study (Roy & Bandyopadhyay, 2016) took their last meal at least 3 hours before the spirometry test and therefore the effect of the time of last meal does not exist in this study as it might happen in case a large meal is taken within 2 hours pretesting (Miller et al., 2005).
Point 3. Participants’ earlier experience with Ramadan fasting. It is agreed that subjects’ participation history in Ramadan fasting should had been recorded.
Point 4. Participant position during spirometry. Subjects’ positioning should had been mentioned in the article. It is clarified that in the present study (Roy & Bandyopadhyay, 2016) all the pulmonary function measurements were taken in the standing posture.
We are glad to know that our article (Roy & Bandyopadhyay, 2016) appeared to be a well done Indian study to the esteemed reader and we have noted the points raised, which will be rigorously taken care of in relevant future studies as desired in the letter.