Author's response to reviews Title: A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia Authors:

The term C-MAC Miller is confusing. I had read this over several times thinking that Storz had in fact produced a C-Miller blade. Perhaps the authors would consider abbreviating this as C-MAC/MT (for Miller technique) so that the Miller blade design is not so strongly suggested. We greatly appreciate this reviewers’ comment, since we were not aware of the current description being a basis for misinterpretation. Accordingly, we changed the abbreviation as suggested by the reviewer to C-MAC/SBT (SBT for “straight blade technique”). “no optimal glottic view with DL” is awkward phrasing. Thank you for this advice. We chanced the wording to “suboptimal”. “impeded glottic view”-consider “suboptimal” or Cormack-Lehane>1 Thank you for this advice. We chanced the wording to “suboptimal”. Methods include Results (eg age, gender, weight) According to the reviewers’ advice we have moved patient data to the results section.