Dear Editor,
We thank the authors for their careful reading of our article and for highlighting the discrepancy in the reporting of age in Table 1.[1,2]
As stated in the statistical analysis section, normality of continuous variables was assessed using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Age was treated as a non-normally distributed variable and compared among the three groups using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The P value of 0.449 reported in Table 1 was obtained using this test and is consistent with the statistical methodology described in the manuscript.
We acknowledge that age was inadvertently presented in Table 1 as mean ± standard deviation instead of median [interquartile range (IQR)]. This was an error in descriptive presentation and not in the statistical analysis.
On rechecking the original dataset, the correct age values [median (IQR)] are 54.5 (42.25–66.5) years in Group A, 57.0 (50.75–65.0) years in Group B, and 53.5 (37.75–62.5) years in Group C. The between-group comparison remains non-significant (Kruskal–Wallis, P = 0.449).
Appropriate assessment of data distribution and selection of corresponding descriptive measures and statistical tests are important for transparent reporting of clinical research.[3] We thank the authors for bringing this inadvertent discrepancy to our attention. Importantly, the inferential statistical analysis of age was performed using the appropriate non-parametric test, and the reported P value remains unchanged. Therefore, this correction in descriptive presentation does not alter the baseline comparability, results, interpretation, or conclusions of our randomised controlled trial.
Study data availability
De-identified data may be requested with reasonable justification from the authors (email to the corresponding author) and shall be shared after approval as per the authors’ institution policy.
Disclosure of use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assistive or generative tools
No artificial intelligence was used for manuscript preparation except for Grammarly for academic language editing.
Author contributions
LKS: Drafting and revision of the response. RGB, AP, RKS and PS: Critical review and revision. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Senapati LK, Bodigandla RG, Pradhan A, Sahoo RK, Samanta P. Dexmedetomidine versus magnesium sulphate as adjuvants to ropivacaine in ilioinguinal-iliohypogastric nerve block for inguinal hernia repair: A randomised controlled trial. Indian J Anaesth. 2026;70:806–13. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_457_26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Basappakokati DR, Swami SS. A statistical point for clarification in "dexmedetomidine versus magnesium sulphate as adjuvants to ropivacaine in ilioinguinal–iliohypogastric nerve block for inguinal hernia repair: A randomised controlled trial". Indian J Anaesth. 2026;70:1077–8. doi: 10.4103/ija.ija_457_26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Panos GD, Boeckler FM. Statistical analysis in clinical and experimental medical research: Simplified guidance for authors and reviewers. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023;17:1959–61. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S427470. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]