{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02155688622754491, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004790419161676647, 'mean_word_length': 5.192592592592592, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Is halothane obsolete? An illustration of measurement with two standards].

In 1986 the discussion on the further use of halothane broke out anew, especially after the Bristol symposium and the European Congress of Anesthesiology in Vienna. Everywhere there is great uncertainty on whether or not halothane should continue to be used. A critical analysis of the literature shows that there are two standards applied to halothane. When judged by the same stringent criteria as halothane other anesthetic techniques are also dubious, e.g. neuroleptanesthesia or epidural block. Finally, experience with isoflurane, the strongest rival of halothane, is not adequate to warrant abandoning halothane, especially as long as the question of coronary steal is still open. At present there is no solid scientific basis for vanishing halothane.