We agree with statistical interpretation of the results made by Dr. Dutta. However, conclusions and interpretation made in our study must be viewed in light of some important facts. In absence of concrete data on duration of phototherapy in Rh hemolytic disease, calculation of sample size was based on our pilot data (unpublished). We enrolled the pre-calculated number of subjects, but because of wider dispersion of phototherapy duration, the primary outcome of our study, we were unable to reject the null hypothesis that 1 g/kg of IVIg is not better than 0.5 g/kg in reducing duration of phototherapy. Post-hoc analysis showed that the study was underpowered to detect a difference of 24 h in the duration of phototherapy- the intended difference. But the study had 80% power to detect a difference of 36 hr in the duration of phototherapy. The trend towards decreased duration of phototherapy observed in 1 g/kg IVIg group should be interpreted with caution in light of the opposite trend of longer hospital stay in the same group and the illness severity of babies. Moreover, we were unable to detect significant difference in other outcomes like number of exchange transfusions, duration of hospital stay, number of packed red blood cell transfusions and peak serum total bilirubin. Our study was not powered to detect change in these outcomes, but detecting statistically meaningful difference in an important outcome like need of exchange transfusion will need huge sample size.