Response to the letter to the editor: Methodological considerations on "Comparison of dexmedetomidine and morphine versus plain ropivacaine 0.2% for myofascial infiltration in thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a double-blind randomized trial".
- DOI
- 10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2
- Published
- 2026 Jun
- Container
- Asian spine journal
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Open access
- yes
Credibility signals
uncertain Score 53/100 under policy 1.0.0. This is a metadata assessment, not a judgment of the paper's conclusions.
Show all credibility signals
- cautionDOI registered: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- cautionDOI resolves: No matching Crossref record was present in this response.
- supportingDirectory of Open Access Journals: A matching record was returned by DOAJ.
- not scoredMEDLINE indexed: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredOpenAlex core source: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredKnown publisher allow-list: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredROR affiliation: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredRetraction Watch retraction: No retraction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch expression of concern: No expression of concern notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch correction: No correction notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- not scoredRetraction Watch reinstatement: No reinstatement notice matched this DOI in the deployed snapshot. No matching event found; coverage may be incomplete.
- supportingOpen access status: Normalized open-access status: open.
- not scoredPublication license: Not checked or no result supplied; no credibility inference made.
- not scoredPublication version: A publication version was supplied but is not scored.
- cautionMetadata completeness: 5 of 6 scored descriptive metadata groups are present; missing fields increase uncertainty.
Cite this work
BibTeX
@article{allodium:10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2,
title = {Response to the letter to the editor: Methodological considerations on "Comparison of dexmedetomidine and morphine versus plain ropivacaine 0.2\% for myofascial infiltration in thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a double-blind randomized trial".},
author = {Dey S and Bhamri S and Jaiswal A and Gupta K and Gupta MM and Kumar A},
year = {2026},
journal = {Asian spine journal},
doi = {10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2},
url = {https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2}
}RIS
TY - JOUR TI - Response to the letter to the editor: Methodological considerations on "Comparison of dexmedetomidine and morphine versus plain ropivacaine 0.2% for myofascial infiltration in thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a double-blind randomized trial". AU - Dey S AU - Bhamri S AU - Jaiswal A AU - Gupta K AU - Gupta MM AU - Kumar A PY - 2026 JO - Asian spine journal DO - 10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2 UR - https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2 ER -
APA
S, D., S, B., A, J., K, G., MM, G., & A, K. (2026). Response to the letter to the editor: Methodological considerations on "Comparison of dexmedetomidine and morphine versus plain ropivacaine 0.2% for myofascial infiltration in thoracolumbar spinal fusion: a double-blind randomized trial".. Asian spine journal. https://doi.org/10.31616/asj.2026.0125.r2