All reviews of published articles are made public. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials. Note: This was optional for articles submitted before 13 February 2023.
Peer reviewers are encouraged (but not required) to provide their names to the authors when submitting their peer review. If they agree to provide their name, then their personal profile page will reflect a public acknowledgment that they performed a review (even if the article is rejected). If the article is accepted, then reviewers who provided their name will be associated with the article itself.
Thank you for making the requested additional corrections. This makes your paper stronger.
As you will see, you revised version was critically examined by one of the original reviewers who made a series of important and useful remarks. Although the reviewer larked your paper as requiring only minor revisions, I guess that the extent of the corrections needed is such that we should consider tour revised version still in need of major revision. As I mentioned in my previous mail, we are expecting the authors to fully take into account the reviewers remarks and comments. So, please, do this work now. If you disagree with some of the comments or remarks, explain why. This will be your last chance to have your paper published in PeerJ. I, therefeore, look forward receiving a new version where you will have made all necessary efforts to improve your submission. Do not forget to also provide a detailed rebuttal.
Double check figures and tables
I checked that figures and tables have been appropriately manipulated.
Open the raw data
The authors improved data. But, I think adding data of tidal volume helps the readers to understand the data.
English language check
The authors improved language.
1. Basic Reporting
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout?
The authors improved language.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided?
Yes.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared?
I consider that article structure is okay.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses?
I think the results are appropriate.
2. Experimental design
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal?
Yes, I think the study is an original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap?
Yes.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard?
Some improvement needs to be done before acceptance.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate?
Yes.
3. Validity of the findings
Impact and novelty not assessed.
Negative/inconclusive results accepted.
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Okay.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled?
The authors improved data. But, I think adding data of tidal volume helps the readers to understand the data.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results?
Yes.
Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such?
Yes.
4. General comments
The authors evaluated the effects of nebulized dexmedetomidine on oxygenation during one lung ventilation. This is a well-done study and I think the results are interesting. I think some improvement need to be done. The actual P values need to be reported.
Major concerns
None.
Minor concerns
1. What is the clinically significant difference of PaO2 used in sample size calculation (Page 11, Line 138)?
2. I think adding data of tidal volume helps the readers to understand the data.
3. I do not understand the sentence “150 patients with were undergoing elective thoracoscopic surgery”.
4. The actual P values need to be reported (Page 11, Line 153- Page 12, Line 154).
5. I do not understand the sentence “Vibrating mesh nebulizer unit before the already anesthetized patient” (Page 23, Figure 2).
As you will see, the two reviewers had quite divergent opinions. Having read your paper with attention, I'd suggest you to prepare a revised version and a rebuttal in which you explain how (and where) you have taken the reviewers' comments into consideration in the new version. If you disagree with some comments or suggestions, explain why. Your rebuttal will be an essential element for me to reach a final decision. Also, be aware that your revised version may undergo a new round of review by the same or by different reviewers. I cannot therefore make any commitment about a final acceptance of your revised submission at this stage.
Clear and unambiguous, professional English used throughout?
I checked that language is relatively clear, but some words are odd. The manuscript would benefit from language editing by either a native English speaker or a professional editor.
Literature references, sufficient field background/context provided?
Yes, I think the background section is okay.
Professional article structure, figures, tables. Raw data shared?
I consider that article structure is okay. The data, however, contain very limited information. The authors need to provide not only the outcomes, but the other related data like intraoperative crystalloid infusion doses, colloid doses, and urine output, etc.
Self-contained with relevant results to hypotheses?
I think the results are appropriate.
Original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal?
Yes, I think the study is an original primary research within Aims and Scope of the journal.
Research question well defined, relevant & meaningful. It is stated how research fills an identified knowledge gap?
Yes.
Rigorous investigation performed to a high technical & ethical standard?
Some improvement needs to be done before acceptance.
Methods described with sufficient detail & information to replicate?
Methods are somewhat hard to understand, especially the timing of administration of dexmedetomidine.
Impact and novelty not assessed.
Negative/inconclusive results accepted.
Meaningful replication encouraged where rationale & benefit to literature is clearly stated.
Okay.
All underlying data have been provided; they are robust, statistically sound, & controlled?
No, the authors need to provide not only the outcomes, but the other related data like intraoperative crystalloid infusion doses, colloid doses, and urine output, etc.
Conclusions are well stated, linked to original research question & limited to supporting results?
The authors need to remove “safe” from the conclusion. The sample size is not large enough to evaluate side effects.
Speculation is welcome, but should be identified as such?
Yes.
I’d like to thank the editor giving me this opportunity of reviewing Manuscript 39127v1. The authors evaluated the effects of nebulized dexmedetomidine on oxygenation during one lung ventilation. This is a well-done study and I think the results are interesting. I have, however, several concerns.
Major concerns
1. What’s the primary outcome? What is the clinically significant difference of primary outcome used in sample size calculation (Page 10, Line 107)?
2. The timing of drug administration or outcome measuring is unclear. A figure of protocol may help readers understand the protocol.
3. The authors gave intervention before initiation of one-lung ventilation. Why PaO2 values at TLV15min are not different?
4. The authors cited Groeben’s study. The study shows that intravenous dexmedetomidine dilated the airway. Inhalational dexmedetomidine constricted the airway. The authors need to discuss about this study (Anesthesiology 2004: 100; 359–63)
5. Why the authors used inspiration pressure of 20 cmH2O instead of tidal volume of 4-6 mL/kg? I prefer tidal volume of 4-6 mL/kg (Can J Anaesth. 2014: 61; 1103-21).
6. Randomization, blinding, or generalizability are not properly stated. Please revise. (Supplemental Files 3)
7. Raw
Minor concerns
1. Inclusion criteria are odd. Is the criteria determined before initiation of study?
2. The authors need to show actual P value.
3. The discrimination of the adverse events is poor.
4. The data, however, contain very limited information. The authors need to provide not only the outcomes, but the other related data like intraoperative crystalloid infusion doses, colloid doses, and urine output, etc.
'no comment'
'no comment'
'no comment'
I would have liked them to work on graphs and not just tables, since it is a more illustrative way of showing the results.
The authors present an interesting study with immediate clinical applications.
The hazgos are relevant and very interesting from the clinical point of view, but also in the basic sciences.
It would be interesting to be able to know the mechanisms involved in reducing the dose of propofol, due to the serious problems of reperfusion after a general anesthesia.
All text and materials provided via this peer-review history page are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.