Garcia and Traebert¹1. Garcia LP, Traebert JL. Carta ao Editor: impacto da autocorrelação na análise temporal dos coeficientes de mortalidade pelo HIV no Brasil. Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2018; 21: e180020 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720180020
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720180... commented our article published in Revista Brasileira de Epidemiologia.²2. Guimarães MDC, Carneiro M, Abreu DMX, França E. Mortalidade por HIV/Aids no Brasil, 2000-2015: Motivos para preocupação? Rev Bras Epidemiol. 2017; 20 (Supl. 1): 182-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-5497201700050015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1980-549720170... The correspondents questioned the application of the linear regression method in data from Brazil, the Southern and Southeastern regions, and a series of six other states. However, they are mistaken in their reading of the methodology used in our article and incoherently interpreted the results, whose central focus was to compare HIV/AIDS mortality data at two points in time, 2000 and 2014/2015, according to two distinct sources: Department of STD, AIDS, and Viral Hepatitis (Departamento de DST, Aids e Hepatites Virais - DDAHV) and GBD. We clarify that we used linear regression, a classic and easy-to-understand method, only in Brazilian regions, according to data published by the DDAHV, to describe the information about historical series of HIV/AIDS mortality in the country. This analysis does not have the purpose of predicting the future, let alone comparing data with the GBD. About the past, there is no mention of angular coefficient significance. That is, it continues to be an analysis that describes the situation in the period in relation to the decrease in absolute value of the rate, and not in its percentage, as suggested by the correspondents’ methodology. We did not make regressions for the states, and the relative percentage variations for the two sources were calculated based on data observed and published by both in 2000 and 2014/2015, respectively. We did not estimate these coefficients, given that the complexity of each methodology requires the same pattern for comparability. Moreover, as pointed out in the limitations, the interpretation of data from sources so heterogeneous should always be made with caution. Thus, we stand by our analysis and interpretation considering the proposed objective of the article. We thank the correspondents and understand that the proposals made are relevant, and a new study assessing and comparing both data sources can be developed.

References

Publication Dates