Dear Editor,We read with interest the recent paper by Benavides et al[1] and commend the authors for conducting a double-blinded, randomized trial of this nature. There are very few high-quality trials evaluating warming and humidification of laparoscopic insufflation gas.[2,3]The authors indicate that the surgeon and principal investigator were blinded to patient allocation. However, the method of blinding was not outlined. It is clear from the paper that a different insufflation tube was used, depending on whether the patient received dry cold gas, heated only gas, or humidified warm gas. Therefore, how was blinding of the tubing achieved during the operation? Who was responsible for setting up the equipment, and was this done away from the view of the surgical team?Secondly, we would like to indicate that there appears to be a potential conflict of interest on the part of the journal, as one of the associate editors has patented the device in question (Insuflow® gas conditioning system) and has a previously disclosed financial relationship with the manufacturer. We suggest that this should be indicated in the publication, as should any conflict of interest on the part of the authors and their affiliated institutions.[4]Sincerely yours,
Authors: Jeffrey M Drazen; Martin B Van der Weyden; Peush Sahni; Jacob Rosenberg; Ana Marusic; Christine Laine; Sheldon Kotzin; Richard Horton; Paul C Hébert; Charlotte Haug; Fiona Godlee; Frank A Frizelle; Peter W de Leeuw; Catherine D DeAngelis Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-10-13 Impact factor: 91.245