No abstract available.
Anesthesiology*

No abstract available.
Anesthesiology

BACKGROUND: The Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) was first published in 1968 containing only 16 articles. In 1998, the number is 291. However, the quantitative growth does not mean a qualitative growth. There are many aspects to improving quality. One of them is statistical accuracy. I have examined the statistical methods in our field and checked the accuracy of the methods. Then, I compared the results with the methods in the 1980s and examined what kinds of changes exist. METHODS: I reviewed all the articles except case reports and review articles in KJA published from 1994 to 1998. I focused on the methods of inferential statistics because those kinds of statistics were usually mentioned in the articles. It is based on the mentioned technique in the article to decide which inferential statistics are used, even though sometimes they are not accurate. I adopted the similar statistical error criteria selected by Ko. RESULTS: Basic statistical error, for example no statistics used even though statistical methods are needed, were dramatically reduced compared to the 1980s. It is increased to use the mean comparison methods correctly, but, some statistical methods are still misused frequently, for example Chi-square test, nonparametric analysis, multiple comparison methods and improperly adopted methods based on the variable scale. CONCLUSION: Generally, based on my criteria statistical errors are reduced from about 75% in the 1980s to about 60% in the 1990s.
Anesthesiology*

No abstract available.
Anesthesiology

No abstract available.
Anesthesiology*

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to investigate the frequency of and errors in citation of references in articles from the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology (KJA) from the first application of the present contribution rules (1996) to 1998 and to suggest a clue to improve the quality of our journal. METHODS: All references cited from KJA were reviewed using a computerized searching system. If any differences are found during the review, we compare it with the original article. Errors on the contribution rules were examined according to the instructions for the authors revised in 1995. RESULTS: Overall 74% of the articles had more than one reference cited from KJA. The average number of the references cited from KJA per article was 1.73. In such references, citation errors were found in 48% of articles published in 1996, 44% in 1997, and 43% in 1998. The percentages of general errors and errors involving the contribution rules were 62% and 38%, respectively. Common general errors were found in titles (164 cases), pages (102 cases), and name (60 cases). Those involving the contribution rules found in the notation of name (120 cases), pages (54 cases), and inadequate notation of the number of issue (49 cases). CONCLUSIONS: Despite numerous efforts, the incidence of citation errors was still high when the articles of KJA were cited as references. Improvement in the quality of our journal will be possible only by rigid adherence to contribution rules, thorough review of the articles, and a lucid explanation of contribution rules.
Anesthesiology* ; Incidence

No abstract available.
Anesthesiology* ; Education*

There is a very large literature on Anesthesiology in the Philippines, two thousand or so of them. Each anesthesiologist today holds in part a measure of the chronicle. The prologue to our story encompasses the past, of anesthesia's beginnings in foreign shores. Our own chapter begins, at a much later date, when a young doctor alighted from a plane 53 years ago. By following his trail we can weave the multiple strands of peoples, places and events that make the tapestry of Philippine anesthesiology today.
ANESTHESIOLOGY ; ANESTHESIA

No abstract available.
Anesthesiology* ; Education* ; Korea*

The previous articles of the Statistical Round in the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology posed a strong enquiry on the issue of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST). P values lie at the core of NHST and are used to classify all treatments into two groups: "has a significant effect" or "does not have a significant effect." NHST is frequently criticized for its misinterpretation of relationships and limitations in assessing practical importance. It has now provoked criticism for its limited use in merely separating treatments that "have a significant effect" from others that do not. Effect sizes and CIs expand the approach to statistical thinking. These attractive estimates facilitate authors and readers to discriminate between a multitude of treatment effects. Through this article, I have illustrated the concept and estimating principles of effect sizes and CIs.
Anesthesiology ; Confidence Intervals* ; Thinking