Reader response
Myron Yaster MD
From Liz Hansen MD University of Washington Seattle
Thank you so much for covering our paper here for the PAAD! I just want to clarify an important point. We are simply catching up to other parts of the world, where reusable circuits are kept for a week at a time, using highly efficient filters for each patient. I wanted to point out that we did not use single-use disposable (SUD) circuits for more than one patient, instead, we extended the use of heavy-duty *reusable* circuits beyond the 24-hour instructions for use. Every patient had their own filter to reduce the risk of microbial transmission. Compared to SUD, weekly changes of reusable circuits reduced our plastic waste by 84%.
From -Bishr Haydar MD
Thanks for bring attention to the “Correspondence” / “Letter to the Editor” format. I agree with Sean and Sapna. To expand a few of their ideas:
Letters need to have a focused message that directly address the paper’s context, methodology or results, that are not covered in the paper or associated editorial(s).
Even a brief mention of your main point in the original paper or an editorial will sink your submission.
On occasion, subspecialty journals will accept letters on papers in other prominent journals.
For example, Pediatric Anesthesia published an excellent letter to the editor regarding last year’s JAMA Pediatrics publication on EEG guided anesthesia. JAMA Pediatrics also published two editorials and two letters relating to that article, whose author (Dr. Yasuko Nagasaka) was the Distinguished International Scholar at the most recent SPA meeting.
They have a high rejection rate, depending on the journal and current editor.
BJA currently seems to publish many letters, while a previous editor of Anesthesiology allowed very few letters.
They do not “correct the record” effectively.
Misstatements or errors in the original paper are often repeated when that paper is cited in subsequent works.
On very rare occasions, you may identify such significant issues that make the original paper more appropriate for retraction.
If so, you should contact the editors directly, rather than submit a Letter to the Editor. Remember, our field has more than its share of fraud, unfortunately.
Letter authors may get on the editor’s radar, which may create opportunities for peer review. (which can also become a burden)
It’s a great way to engage learners in appraising and contextualizing literature, and publishing alongside them.
You can demonstrate mentorship of learners on your CV by publishing alongside them.
Journals typically have a short deadline to consider letters.
Your letter may be subjected to peer review, in which case it should be listed appropriately on your CV after acceptance.
Before submitting, considering engaging with a skilled writer to optimize the work. You’ll want it to be direct, pithy, clear and well-structured, and to limit the letter to one or very few strong/important ideas. Adding weaker points lowers the likelihood of acceptance. Sean and Sapna’s 3rd reference is open access and seems to be very helpful, on quick review