We thank the authors of the reply letter for their dedication to reading the article “Insufficient level of physical activity and high screen time in adolescents: impact of associated factors”. We understand that science is not a unique truth and that it will always be constantly evolving. That is why we accept questions and opinions, especially the relevant and constructive ones. However, we consider it essential to respond to the notes of the authors of the letter.

1. When the authors indicate “it is important to suggest that a sample composed not only of students from public schools, but also from private schools, it would not open space for questions regarding the results obtained”.

   1. - First, we appreciate the fact that the letter itself mentions that we indicate the limitation of the study and the caution in the interaction of the results;

   2. - This study used as a delimitation of public school adolescents, which suggests that the results are extrapolated only to this population, which does not allow doubts regarding the results obtained;

   3. - Besides, we highlight that in the study methodology, we indicate the sample calculation relative to the municipality’s public schools. Additionally, we present sufficient sample power for the statements made by the study. Allied to correct sampling processes to the design and characteristics of the study, where we can guarantee the representativeness of the population of interest reported in the methods for this population;

   4. - We also emphasize that the socioeconomic level variable was included in our study in the adjusted analyses to minimize this in the associations performed.

2. When the authors suggest, “Therefore, it would be interesting to describe in the title, that these students are teenagers from public schools and not just teenagers”.

   1. - We appreciate the authors’ concern in trying to improve the quality of the original article. However, when looking at the methodology of the study, can see that this information is evident in such a session;

   2. - We highlight that study limitation refers to the entire study and not specifically to the title, as suggested by the authors of the letter;

   3. - The norms of the Ciência & Saúde Coletiva Journal indicate a limitation regarding the number of characters in the title. Thus, adding the suggestion of the authors of the letter would exceed the limit established by the journal. Thus, we chose to follow the recommendations of Thomas et al.¹1 Thomas JR, Nelson JK, Silverman SJ. Métodos de pesquisa em atividade física. 6ª ed. Artmed: Porto Alegre; 2012. and propose a title that briefly informs the study’s content.

3. When the authors suggest “we suggest the production of a work that involves students from public and private schools in order to present results that represent a more reliable sample and that really represents the behavior of adolescents from different socioeconomic classes”.

   1. - However, we suggest rereading the original article because the sample also includes adolescents of high economic class, even attending public schools. The socioeconomic level does not characterize the niches of a public and private environment. Students who study in public schools are not necessarily classified as of lower socioeconomic status, and that private school children do not always have a better socioeconomic status. The sample involves adolescents from public schools but who also have a high social class. Thus, the delimitation of conducting the research only with students from public schools and classifying them in different socioeconomic levels seems to answer any possible doubt regarding the behavior of adolescents from various economic classes;

   2. - We are aware of the gaps in the literature, and, within the possibilities, we are trying to answer the existing questions.

We emphasize that the article was peer-reviewed and approved in its entirety by the journal. We understand that the answer letter is an ideal space for dialogue between author and reader. However, this space should have the same rigor for publication as an article submitted to bring clarity to discussions and not mists. Otherwise, publications that do not arouse curiosity about scientific production are encouraged.

We also appreciate the authors’ considerations and leave the same suggestions to observe the literature gaps and elaborate research that adds the literature and advance in the scientific discussion, providing more significant scientific development.

References

Publication Dates