Log on / register
BioMed Central home | Journals A-Z | Feedback | Support | My details
Letter

Comments on the study by Taniguchi and coworkers – proving Hippocrates is alive

Nahit Cakar email

Istanbul Medical Faculty, Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Capa/Istanbul, Turkey 34093

author email corresponding author email

Critical Care 2009, 13:415doi:10.1186/cc7957

Published: 24 August 2009


See related research by Taniguchi et al., http://ccforum.com/content/13/1/R6, and related commentary by Adigüzel et al., http://ccforum.com/content/13/3/142

First paragraph (this article has no abstract)

I read with interest the article by Taniguchi and coworkers [1] and its accompanying commentary by Adigüzel and colleagues [2] in Critical Care. I have some questions concerning the methodology of the study. Taniguchi and coworkers randomized the postoperative patients to two groups: automated pressure support (PS) mandatory rate ventilation (MRV) and manual PS. In the automated PS MRV group, the patient's expected respiratory rate (RR) was used as a guide to adjust the PS level, employing the algorithm of the Taema-Horus Ventilator® (Air Liquid, France) in MRV mode. However, in the manual PS group the guide for adjusting the PS level was tidal volume/RR (which was kept less than 80 l), and adjustments were done manually every 30 minutes by intensive care staff.


© 1999-2010 BioMed Central Ltd unless otherwise stated. Part of Springer Science+Business Media.