Dear Editor,
I would like to thank the authors for their efforts and interest1. First, they stated that they found a negative value because of the calculation they made with the glenopolar angle. When we re-evaluated our data, we encountered the following situation. We calculated our values in cm and provided descriptive statistics; however, since we received a revision from the referees to keep it in mm, we changed it to this value. Because of the revision, a negative result emerged. The formula works correctly when the data are used in cm. Other than that, there is no problem with data2.
We would like to point out that the angles a1 and a2 are parameters that we evaluated, although they are not available in the literature. Because the sample size calculation was not made, it is not expressed in the article. Thirty-four bones in the department were used. The age and gender of the bones are unknown, and side differences were not considered in the study. In Figure 1, the trigonum scapula, which is the most protruding point of the medial edge, is considered a separate anatomical structure, and the part outside this area is taken as reference. In Figure 4, the coracoid process and acromion end parts are taken as references, and we believe that these points are clearly expressed in the figure. We measured the length and width of the coracoid process and presented it in a single figure. We can also see in the discussion section that the data we obtained are compatible with the literature. In Figure 6, it can be seen that the line connecting the points has shifted. However, there is no change in the area it is trying to define2.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,