You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 291 No. 16, April 28, 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on ISI (3)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Surgical Physiology
 •Surgical Infections
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: Given the low frequency of SSIs in the study of Dr Pryor and colleagues,1 we are concerned that their sample size was too small to obtain reliable results. The authors stated that 300 patients provided an 80% power to rule out a 40% difference between the treatment groups (the specified null hypothesis) at an {alpha} of .05. Using an 11% infection rate in patients given 35% oxygen, as reported by Greif et al2 and observed by Pryor et al, we compute that an 80% power to detect a 40% reduction in the infection rate from 11% to 6.6% would require 651 patients; 930 patients would be required to detect a 40% increase from 11% to 15.4%. The study thus appears to have been underpowered from the start—and then was stopped after only 160 patients were randomized. For a study anticipated to have 300 patients, 160 patients (53.3%) is . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Robert Greif, MD
Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine
Danube Hospital/SMZ East
Vienna, Austria

Daniel I. Sessler, MD
sessler@louisville.edu
Department of Anesthesiology and Pharmacology
University of Louisville
Louisville, Ky


RELATED ARTICLES

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
Harriet W. Hopf, Thomas K. Hunt, and Noah Rosen
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1956.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
Ozan Akça and Daniel I. Sessler
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1956-1957.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
Johann Harten, Keith Anderson, and John Kinsella
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1957.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
James T. Lee
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1957-1958.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection
Martin J. O'Neill, Jr
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1958.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Supplemental Oxygen and Risk of Surgical Site Infection—Reply
Kane O. Pryor, Thomas J. Fahey, III, Cynthia A. Lien, and Peter A. Goldstein
JAMA. 2004;291(16):1958-1959.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Surgical Site Infection and the Routine Use of Perioperative Hyperoxia in a General Surgical Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Kane O. Pryor, Thomas J. Fahey, III, Cynthia A. Lien, and Peter A. Goldstein
JAMA. 2004;291(1):79-87.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2004 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.