{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011111111111111112, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.934108527131783, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of Lurasidone Versus Quetiapine for the Treatment of Delirium in Critically Ill Patients

We would like to thank Dr Kleinman for his comments, especially as they call attention to a particular dilemma within medical literature. We agree with Dr Kleinman that our study is underpowered and not structured to assess efficacy. We acknowledged this limitation in the body of the article. Although we agree this would have been clearer to state in the abstract, we were unable to list all of the limitations in the abstract due to the word count limit. We endeavored to provide as truthful and faithful information as may be useful within our abstract while following the strategy pursued by many authors of explaining our limitations within the body of the article. Finally, the information collected in this research study was collected in a prospective manner to limit unknown data points. The data set only included data that were collected in the course of normal patient care, thus meeting the standards of waivers. However, since the study was prospective, our institutional review board deemed it within our ability to provide information to patients about how their data were being used and provide them with the opportunity to refrain from having their information included in the study. We hope this research and Dr Kleinman’s comments inspire others to pursue large, randomized trials with these agents so that we may have more definitive answers to questions that plague patient care in the intensive care unit.