We appreciate the comments expressed by Professor Paulo (EC) Dantas1 PEC regarding our paper about ‘Relationship between Refraction and Allergic Conjunctivitis’ published in the October 2007 issue (Mimura et al, 2007).

Indeed, data were taken simultaneously for both eyes of an individual and both eyes were used for analysis. However, only right eye per patient was entered into the study because there was no significant difference in any of the parameters between right and left eyes. Seasonal allergic conjunctivitis was diagnosed according to the guidelines of diagnosis and treatment of conjunctivitis (Ben Ezra D. Guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of conjunctivitis. Ocul Immunol Inflam 1994). Reference 3 was according to the guideline in this journal. Table 1 contained both the profile of the patients and the results of ocular biometry; therefore, the profile of the patients should be put in the method section as he suggested.

Table 1 Comparison of ocular biometry and refraction between patients with and without seasonal allergic conjunctivitis
Full size table

We thank Professor Dantas for the important comments regarding the corneal structural changes in the allergic conjunctivitis. We also think the presumption that the configuration of the corneal surface leads to allergic conjunctivitis is not important for the relationship between refraction and allergic conjunctivitis. Education level and socioeconomic factor rather than the configuration of the corneal surface may be important factors adding to the risk of allergic sensitization in patients with myopia. The comments of Professor Dantas were so helpful to understand the relationship between the changes in corneal structure and corneal inflammation. Thanks again.