Indian Journal of Anaesthesia

COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED ARTICLE
Year
: 2016  |  Volume : 60  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 224-

Firstborn female offsprings are significantly more common among Indian anaesthesiologists as compared to national child sex ratio


Deepak Gupta 
 Department of Anesthesiology, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan, USA

Correspondence Address:
Deepak Gupta
Department of Anesthesiology, Detroit Medical Center, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
USA




How to cite this article:
Gupta D. Firstborn female offsprings are significantly more common among Indian anaesthesiologists as compared to national child sex ratio.Indian J Anaesth 2016;60:224-224


How to cite this URL:
Gupta D. Firstborn female offsprings are significantly more common among Indian anaesthesiologists as compared to national child sex ratio. Indian J Anaesth [serial online] 2016 [cited 2020 Oct 1 ];60:224-224
Available from: http://www.ijaweb.org/text.asp?2016/60/3/224/177881


Full Text

Sir,

I sincerely appreciate Nagella et al.[1] for accomplishing comprehensive analysis into reproductive outcomes of anaesthesia practice among Indian anaesthesiologists. Similarly, our team, Gupta et al.,[2] had completed clinical survey few years ago that had primarily focused on firstborn offspring ratio investigation among American anaesthesia providers. However, contrary to their statement in their paper's discussion, their survey results do not contradict our results according to my review and post hoc analysis of their results. As elicited below, the reason for their incorrect interpretation of their own results in regard to firstborn offspring sex ratio is most likely due to their incorrect analysis based on misquoted national sex ratios. Among their survey respondents, male to female ( firstborn) offspring ratio was 0.94 meaning that 458 firstborn female children and 430 firstborn male children were born to their 888 respondents who successfully conceived. This ratio effectively means 1065 firstborn female children born to Indian anaesthesiologists per 1000 firstborn male children born to Indian anaesthesiologists. Comparatively, as per the census of India for the year 2011 (a) child sex ratio (CSR) for 0–6 years age group in India was 919 (and NOT 940 as misquoted by them) female children per 1000 male children which equals male to female offspring ratio as 1.09 (and not 1.4 as miscalculated by them)[3] and (b) sex ratio at birth (SRB) was based on the Annual Health Survey of only Empowered Action Group States and Assam (total of nine states).[4] As per the census of India, low SRB reflected low CSR in the surveyed nine states and hence, it can be safely said that a national CSR can be expected to correspond to a matched SRB nationally even though national SRB was not assessed in the census. Therefore, effectively, CSR is the authentic national sex ratio that should be used for comparing with their paper's results. Herein, the Chi-square test shows significant value of P = 0.03 (and not 0.14 as misinterpreted by them) when applied to observed frequency of 458 female children/430 male children and expected frequency (based on CSR) of 425.259 female children/462.741 male children. In summary, I personally think that Nagella et al.[1] should submit an erratum to their paper and take the credit in their paper for eliciting that firstborn female offspring is significantly more common among Indian anaesthesiologists as compared to national CSR.

References

1Nagella AB, Ravishankar M, Hemanth Kumar VR. Anaesthesia practice and reproductive outcomes: Facts unveiled. Indian J Anaesth 2015;59:706-14.
2Gupta D, Kaminski E, McKelvey G, Wang H. Firstborn offspring sex ratio is skewed towards female offspring in anesthesia care providers: A questionnaire-based nationwide study from United States. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol 2013;29:221-7.
3Primary Census Data Highlights-India: Chapter 1-Population, Size and Decadal Change. Available from: . [Last cited on 2015 Dec 10].
4Child Sex Ratio-Presentation by Census Commissioner. Available from: . [Last cited on 2015 Dec 10].