Abstract
Dear Editor,
We read with great interest the review article by Rohan B. Singh et al. on various drug delivery systems for glaucoma. 1 The authors must be commended for their efforts in giving such a vast topic in a concise format. We especially liked the diagram and the table enclosed. Various studies old and new, various phases of trials in human and animal models have all been well reviewed and documented. However, there are multiple small errors while citing the references in the table. To name a few:
Under ‘Film impregnation in contact lens’ for Latanoprost, Ciolino and colleagues reference number is 35 but wrongly mentioned as 34.
Under ‘Subconjunctival inserts’ for Latanoprost, reference is wrongly mentioned as 37 instead of 38.
Under ‘Liposomes’ for Latanoprost, reference is wrongly mentioned as 41 instead of 42.
Under ‘Injectables’ ENV515/PGA or travoprost XR for Travoprost drug, reference is wrongly mentioned as 64 instead of 67 for Bao and colleagues. Also, Bao and colleagues worked on PGLA microspheres 2 and not Travoprost XR.
Under ‘Injectables’ Bimatoprost SR for Bimatoprost, reference is wrongly mentioned as 65 instead of 69. Also, the placement location is mentioned as ocular surface. However, these implants are being injected intracamerally.3,4
Under ‘Polymeric nanoparticles’ under subsection ‘PGT–ethylene glycol dimethacrylate nanoparticles’, the full form of HEMA, that is, hydroxy ethyl methacrylate has been mentioned wrongly as hydroxy methyl methacrylate.
It would be nice if the above mentioned few and also the other minor errors can be corrected.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.