CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in CJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choi, P. T.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Choi, P. T.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, N.
Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 52:338 (2005)
© Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, 2005

Correspondence

REPLY

Peter T.-L. Choi, MD FRCPC*, Homer Yang, MD FRCPC{dagger}, James McChesney, MB CHB FRCPC{ddagger} and Norman Buckley, MD FRCPC{ddagger}

* University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
{dagger} University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
{ddagger} McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada E-mail: pchoi{at}vanhosp.bc.ca

We thank Dr. Donati for his interest in our study.1 The assessment of the intubating conditions in our study was based, in part, on the guidelines recommended at the 1994 consensus conference.2 In the interest of improving the interpretation of our results and permitting future comparisons, we have re-examined the data, which are reported as "excellent", "good", and "poor" based on the consensus conference definitions (TableGo). Data on intubating conditions were incomplete in six patients (three in each group) and were excluded from the analysis. We did not find a statistically significant difference in the intubating conditions between the two groups ({chi}2 = 1.273; P = 0.53). The type of surgery did not affect these findings. In addition, we performed sensitivity analyses in which we allocated the missing patients in the sevoflurane group to the "poor" category and the missing patients in the propofol group to the "excellent" category and vice versa. There were no statistically significant differences in intubating conditions between the two groups in both sensitivity analyses.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE Re-analysis of intubating conditions (defined according to GCRP recommendations) by method of anesthetic induction
 

References

1 Yang H, Choi PT, McChesney J, Buckley N. Induction with sevoflurane-remifentanil is comparable to propofol-fentanyl-rocuronium in PONV after laparoscopic surgery. Can J Anesth 2004; 51: 660–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

2 Viby-Mogensen J, Engbaek J, Eriksson LI, et al. Good clinical research practice (GCRP) in pharmacodynamic studies of neuromuscular blocking agents. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1996; 40: 59–74.[Medline]


Related articles in CJA:

Evaluating intubating conditions using the GCRP recommendations
François Donati
CJA 2005 52: 337-338. [Full Text]  




This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Related articles in CJA
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Choi, P. T.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Choi, P. T.-L.
Right arrow Articles by Buckley, N.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS