Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeNot quite right
Posted by RobertPOShea on 20 Sep 2007 at 00:14 GMT
Participants randomized to the control group received an educational booklet, designed by the British Physiotherapy Association that has been previously validated to compare with active physiotherapy[7].
http://plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0000919#article1.body1.sec2.sec2.sec2.p1
The wording here is ambiguous. One interpretation is that Szczurko et al.'s control condition is equivalent to a full course of physiotherapy. The other (correct) interpretation is that Szczurko et al. used a booklet that had been used in other research.
The study Szczurko et al. cite (Frost et al., 2004) showed that a single visit, lasting up to an hour, to a physiotherapist for advice was just as effective as a standard course of physiotherapy involving a one-hour assessment and up to five 30-minute treatment sessions. Both groups of participants in that study received the same educational booklet. That is, the booklet was a constant, the amount of time spent with a physiotherapist was the manipulated variable.
The first interpretation of Szczurko et al.'s sentence is incorrect because Frost et al. did not show the booklet to be effective by itself.