2021
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0000000000005626
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intravenous versus Volatile Anesthesia and Cancer Outcomes: The Value of Precise Definitions and Pitfalls of Multivariate Analysis

Abstract: Letters to the Editor recommendation for replacing CO 2 absorbent that had been identified. 1 As mentioned in our other response, the threshold of 0.05% for changing CO 2 absorbent should have been 0.5% and not 0.05%. We recognize this threshold in percent to be different from 5 mm Hg, but the intention was to provide a threshold that is easy to remember. Dr Gross 1 also identified that mm Hg should be used as the units of partial pressure rather than torr. We included torr to ensure that the information was … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(2 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2 They raised concerns regarding the methodology of our study, arguing that the use of adjusted effect estimates derived from the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and/or propensity-score matching might lead to a biased and potentially misleading result and that a meta-analysis of the unadjusted effect estimates should have been undertaken along with that of the adjusted ones. We agree with Dr Ackerman et al 1 that using adjusted effect estimates for a meta-analysis of observational studies is imperfect, when the variables adjusted for by the included studies vary; however, using unadjusted effect estimates for meta-analysis would be neither less biased nor be justifiable. The limitation of our meta-analyses is intrinsic to observational studies.…”
supporting
confidence: 82%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…2 They raised concerns regarding the methodology of our study, arguing that the use of adjusted effect estimates derived from the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and/or propensity-score matching might lead to a biased and potentially misleading result and that a meta-analysis of the unadjusted effect estimates should have been undertaken along with that of the adjusted ones. We agree with Dr Ackerman et al 1 that using adjusted effect estimates for a meta-analysis of observational studies is imperfect, when the variables adjusted for by the included studies vary; however, using unadjusted effect estimates for meta-analysis would be neither less biased nor be justifiable. The limitation of our meta-analyses is intrinsic to observational studies.…”
supporting
confidence: 82%
“…We thank Dr Ackerman et al 1 for their interest in our study investigating the impacts of anesthesia on the long-term oncological outcomes. 2 They raised concerns regarding the methodology of our study, arguing that the use of adjusted effect estimates derived from the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model and/or propensity-score matching might lead to a biased and potentially misleading result and that a meta-analysis of the unadjusted effect estimates should have been undertaken along with that of the adjusted ones.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%