{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01642935377875137, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.436619718309859, '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}}
Comment: "Prospective case control evaluation of epidural midazolam for improving pain and ambulation after microdiscectomy".

Firstly, the authors mention the design of their study as prospective case control. As an epidemiologist, I disagree with labeling this study in this category. It appears that all patients with microdiscectomy were included in the study. A prospective case-control study is where participants are selected on the basis of presence or absence of outcome with their exposure information prospectively collected. It is an observational study design where there is no treatment intervention. In this study, it seems that there was an intervention by the investigators with the treatment being either midazolam or saline and the outcome early ambulation and postoperative pain control. It would best be labeled as a nonrandomized intervention study among patients undergoing microdiscectomy.