Authors` reply to Letter to the editor on article "Anomalous origin of right coronary artery from left coronary sinus associated with aneurysm of aortic root"

Kuat Аbzaliyev, Rustem Tuleutayev, Daurenbek Urazbekov, K O Ongarbayev

2019

Full text Open access: Gold Metadata (CSL-JSON)

DOI 10.24969/hvt.2019.110

Data confidence 70 medium

How this score is calculated

It is built from checkable properties of the record itself: whether the article has a DOI, how many independent sources confirmed its data, whether the required fields are filled in, and how recent the latest confirmation is. Disagreement between sources and a missing identifier lower it. A value of 80 or above means the record was published without further checking; 60 to 79 means it is published at reduced confidence, with a manual check advisable. A record verified by an editor by hand is never pushed below 90 by a recalculation. This scores our data about the article, not the article itself.

Abstract

1, 2).We thank authors for kind thought of our case report.We agree completely with authors about the lack of the additional method of diagnostics, also that the main factor determining the clinical importance of coronary artery anomalies is their hemodynamic significance.In our case we determined the hemodynamically significant dysfunction of the coronary circulation by clinical symptoms and electrocardiogram to choose advanced treatment tactic.Unfortunately, in our practice we did not use such method of diagnostic as MIP, which you noted.But we hope that in the immediate future we will be able to contribute more efficiency data to answer on all issues exercising scientific commonwealth.