Dear Editor of Egyptian Journal of Anaesthesia,
I read an article, which was published on 18 March 2017, on the website of EgJA [Citation1]. This was a study on the effects of intranasal dexmedetomidine in comparison to intranasal ketamine in reducing the emergence agitation [EA] following sevoflurane administration [Citation1]. The article was informative.
However, there are some errors with regard to references cited in that article [Citation1], which I would like to bring to your kind attention.
The sentence in the introduction section, “Both ketamine [5,6] and dexmedetomidine [7–9] through different routes were used to prevent EA after sevoflurane anesthesia”, has some errors.
Chen J et al. [Cited as Ref #2 here, which was Ref#6 in that article] had observed that ketamine group children were more agitated when compared to midazolam or propofol group at all time which was significant also [Citation2]. Hence, the word “prevent” would mislead the readers. The word “test” or “study” would have been better instead of the word “prevent” in that sentence.
Khattab AM et al. [Cited as Ref #3 here, which was Ref#9 in that article] had studied the effects of ketamine [Citation3], not dexmedetomidine as mentioned in that sentence. More than that, this reference article was retracted by the concerned journal exactly one year after its publication, i.e. April 2011 [Citation4]. I strongly believe that we are not supposed to cite an article as a reference following its retraction by the concerned journal.
The sentence in the discussion section, “According to the study of Lirola and his colleagues [23] dexmedetomidine administered intranasally has good bioavailability and its effects were similar to those of intravenous route, was well tolerated, and its maximal effect was after 45–60 min and, [17] Myringotomy is a minimally invasive surgery so, pain, is excluded as a causative factor for EA” lacks clarity because of the reference number 17 cited at inappropriate place. Cimen ZS et al. [Cited as Ref #5 here, which was Ref#17 in that article] had concluded that intranasal administration of dexmedetomidine was more effective than buccal route at same dose [Citation5]. Hence, this reference is not matching for this sentence. However, it is perfectly matching for the study by Iirola T et al. [Citation6], which was cited as reference number 23 in that article, except for a typographical error of the name of the author.
Notes
Peer review under responsibility of Egyptian Society of Anesthesiologists.
References
- H.A.A.EzzPreoperative intranasal dexmedetomidine versus intranasal ketamine for prevention of emergence agitation after sevoflurane in myringotomy patients: A randomized clinical trial.Egypt J Anaesth3022017141146
- J.ChenW.LiX.HuD.WangEmergence agitation after cataract surgery in children: a comparison of midazolam, propofol and ketaminePaediatr Anaest2092010873879
- A.M.KhattabZ.A.El-SeifyA.ShaabanD.RadojevicI.JankovicSevoflurane emergence agitation: effect of supplementary low-dose oral ketamine premedication in preschool children undergoing dental surgeryEur J Anaesthesiol2742010353358
- Sevoflurane-emergence agitation: effect of supplementary low-dose oral ketamine premedication in preschool children undergoing dental surgery: retraction. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2011;28(4):310.
- Z.S.CimenA.HanciG.U.SivrikayaL.T.KilincM.K.ErolComparison of buccal and nasal dexmedetomidine premedication for pediatric patientsPaediatr Anaest2322013134138
- T.IirolaS.ViloT.MannerR.AantaaM.LahtinenM.ScheininBioavailability of dexmedetomidine after intranasal administrationEur J Clin Pharmacol6782011825831