’ s response to reviews Title : Prospective Investigation of Patient-Controlled Intravenous Analgesia with Hydromorphone or Sufentanil : Impact on Mood , Opioid Adverse Effects , and Recovery
Yanqing Yang,Jianping Wu,Huiling Li,Zhiying Feng
2018-01-01
Abstract:Background: Information is only given about the aim of the study. This section misses information concerning the context of the study and the rationale for carrying out this study, i.e. what we already know and what needs to be studied. Response: Thank you for your good advice. We have stated information concerning the context of the study and the rationale for carrying out this study in the background based on your advice. Methods: This section lists many variables that were recorded: VAS score at rest and during mobilization consumption of PCIA, PCA D/D ratio, and rescue analgesics perioperative moodside-effectshemodynamic changestime to recovery, drainage tube removal, walk, and the hospital stay post-surgery However, it is not clear what the primary and secondary outcome measures were. Response: Thank you for your good advice. The primary outcome was mood changes at 48h and 96h after surgery. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of opioid-related adverse effects , recovery results and patient satisfaction after surgery. -“PCA D/D ratio, ... were recorded at various time points” The abbreviation “PCA D/D ratio” is used without explaining what it means. Statistical tests used to analyze the data are not mentioned. Response: Thank you for your good suggestion. The full term of D/D ratio is demand/delivery ratio. The aim of this investigation was to assess the impact of hydromorphone or sufentanil IV-PCA on mood and side effects and recovery for the patients undergoing radical surgery for colorectal cancer, pain was well controlled by IV-PCA. So, We have deleted D/D ratio in the revised version. “No significant differences between the groups were seen during the interruption of IV-PCA, patient satisfaction, time to gastrointestinal recovery ...” The abbreviation “IV PCA” is used without explaining what it means. Is it the same like “PCIA”? If that is the case why using a different abbreviation? Response: I am so appreciated for your review and suggestion. We carefully explained the meaning of the abbreviation “IV PCA”. And we modified “PCIA” into “IVPCA”. No significant differences were seen concerning what variables? Did you want to express that there were no differences concerning patient satisfaction, etc. Variables that are not mentioned in the methods section should not be reported on in the results section (“patient satisfaction, the time to gastrointestinal recovery”). Response: I am so appreciated for your review and suggestion. We carefully revised it in the manuscript. Conclusions: “ could provide potent analgesia, satisfaction, and postoperative recovery for patients undergoing colorectal cancer radical surgery.” -“satisfaction” was not mentioned in the methods section – why report on it in the conclusions? Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully revised the methods,results and conclusions based on your advice. Conclusions: “ could provide potent analgesia, satisfaction, and postoperative recovery for patients undergoing colorectal cancer radical surgery.” -“satisfaction” was not mentioned in the methods section – why report on it in the conclusions? -“satisfaction” needs to be changed to “patient satisfaction” “both ... provide ... potent analgesia” – as there was no significant difference concerning the potency of the opioids, why not mention it in this section? (e.g. “provide a similar level of (potent) analgesia) -“both ... provide ... satisfaction” – what do the authors want to say ? Both methods provide a similar level of patient satisfaction? Both methods provide a high level of patient satisfaction? – Please specify! -“ ...but similar episodes of interrupting the IV-PCA due of nausea and vomiting.” -“interruption of IV-PCA” is mentioned even though this variable has not been mentioned before (methods, results) Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully revised the conclusions based on your advice. Trial registration: The date of registration is missing. Was the study registered prospectively or retrospectively? Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully added the date of registration. “patient-controlled intravenous analgesia (PCIA)” instead of “analgesia” seems to be better; suggested key word (in addition): “side effects” Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully revised the keywords based on your advice. C) Background p.4, 70-72: The statement itself seems to be plausible. However, the reference cited [1, Lu et al. 2010] to support this statement cannot be found on PubMed. In addition, just from the title of the cited reference it is questionable that the cited reference is about “delayed recovery”, “postoperative depression” and “various clinical complications which may be life-threatening” as a consequence of unresolved postoperative pain. p. 5, 80-81: “However, the evaluation of the anesthetic effects does not comprise only of the physiological index but also the psychological index [3]. It is not clear to the reviewers what the “physiological index” and “the psychological index” mean in the context of “the evaluation of the anesthetic effects”. Moreover: “does not comprise only of ..” – meaning? In addition: When submitting a manuscript to an international medical journal that has readers from all over the world it does not really make sense to cite an article [3, Jiang et al. 2009] that readers from other countries outside China don’t have access to! p. 5, 87-88: The statement “In recent years, the mood alterations after anesthesia have become a topic of intensive scrutiny [4].” cannot be verified because the cited reference cannot be found either!!! Also, if there has been intense research going on in the past, the authors should be able to cite at least two papers. p.5, 88-90: The authors report on an interesting finding. However, again (!!!), the statement cannot be verified because the reference cited cannot be found in PubMed! Response: Thank you for your kind suggestions. We carefully revised the background and cited new references which can be found in PubMed based on your advice. p.5, 76-77: Also this statement (“Moreover, ...) makes sense. However, the cited reference [2, Sun et al. 2011] does not support the statement at all because it simply reports on the effectiveness of dezosine to suppress fentanyl induced cough for induction of general anesthesia! A reference which would make sense in this context would report on a study that, for instance, demonstrates the positive effects of less side effects on patient satisfaction. Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully replaced these references with new references. p. 5, 90-92: “Nevertheless, only a few studies have been conducted, hitherto, on the patterns of mood changes in patient-controlled intravenous analgesia.” Reference is missing. Response: Thank you for your good advice. We have provided the references for this sentence. p. 5, 9495: “Sufentanil, a highly selective opioid agonist...” the type of opioid receptors should be mentioned as the authors did for hydromorphone. Response: Thank you for your good advice. We carefully added the type of opioid receptor based on your advice. p. 5, 100: Reference [7] can be deleted because it is an invited comment on an original research paper which reports on the intrathecal administration of hydromorphone vs. morphine by Lee et al. If, at all, the authors should have cited the paper by Lee et al. 2012. Response: Thank you for your kind advice. We carefully deleted the reference 7 and added new references.. p. 5, 103-106: The last sentence of this section enumerates the aims of the study including analgesic efficacy as the first aim (main outcome?) which is inconsistent with the title of the manuscript:“ ... impact on mood, opioid adverse effects and recovery.” In addition, it is not clear, why all the study aims listed in this sentence are a consequence (“Therefore, ...”) of the statements given in this section. In other words, the rationale for carrying out this study with these study aims is not at all presented convincingly: To date no comparison of hydromorphone vs. sufentanil concerning any variable that is mentioned (analgetic potency, etc. )? To date, no data concerning the effects of hydromorphone and sufentanil on the mood? Any reason for the comparison except for the fact that these two opioids are the ones used most commonly following this kind of surgery at the authors’ hospital? Moreover: What is the hypothesis that was studied? Response: Thank you for your good advice. We revised this section based on your advice. Please see the part of background in detail. D) Methods Heading “study subjects” preceding the paragraph that describes the trial design etc. should be placed right above the corresponding paragraph. Accordingly, placement of many other headings should be reassessed! Response: Thank you for your good advice. We have revised according your suggestion. Methodological aspects, Risk of Bias assessment 1) selection bias: low risk, computer generated randomization list, allocation concealment via sealed envelope (Improvements could be, who generated the list?, was it balanced block randomization?, who enrolled the patients? etc.) 2) performance bias: (debatable) low risk, drugs prepared by uninvolved staff (nurse), all other staff is stated to have been blinded Response: Thank you for your good advice. We have revised it according to your suggestion in the relative part. 3) attrition bias: low risk, incomplete outcome data 72/80 patients, dropouts explained Response: Thank you for your good advice. The required number of subjects per group was determined as 33 when the α value (level of significance) was 0.05 (two-sided), and the power 1-β was 0.8. We further added an excess of 20% to the sample size in order to compensate for subject attrition, yielding a final group size of 80 patients. Finally, 72 patients completed the study. A total of 8 patients were excluded from the final analysis due