https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2087-4111
Dear editor
We received a letter to the editor which gave us some comments on the study. These comments are valuable and we would like to respond.
1. About the title: we think the suggested title indicated the most important part of our research. However, we also investigated the association between gender and LVDD.
2. Thanks for the comments, we found a mistake caused by carelessness in the original manuscript, we did put the ratio of the all age groups (see in Table 1) (female vs male, 54.5% vs 46.9%, P<0.05) into the age group of 45–60 years old accidentally. The correct one should be: The incidence of left ventricular diastolic dysfunction had no difference between male and female [female vs male, 16.5% (23/139) vs 13.8% (52/378), P > 0.05] in patients less than 45 years old, and in patients between 45–60 years old [female vs male, 60.7% (184/303) vs 57.6% (381/662), P > 0.05], and in patients more than 60 years old (female vs male, 80.2% (105/131) vs 80.0% (132/165), P > 0.05). We think the sample size became smaller in the separated groups.
Abbreviation: ns, not statistically significant.
And Figure 3 should be:
3. As your comments, this was a cross-sectional study, we used the Logistic regression to investigate the associations, so we should use OR instead of HR for presentation.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.