Search
Advanced Search

Ratings

Design Bias Posted by fgrose on 19 Sep 2007 at 16:34 GMT

    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 3/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1.5/5 Stars.

Authors recognize their primary limitation of inactive intervention for controls.

Poorly designed study Posted by cdmuir on 19 Sep 2007 at 19:09 GMT

    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1/5 Stars.

The control group is not a control at all. It is well known that personal intervention will almost always cause patients to perceive benefits. This study reaffirms that observation and says nothing about the efficacy of the CAM treatment, which is probably nothing, since there is no known mechanism by which it would work. Also, most of their compliance data were self-reported, which is known to be highly unreliable.

Posted by talboito on 19 Sep 2007 at 22:51 GMT

    • Currently 3/5 Stars.
    • Currently 2/5 Stars.
    • Currently 1/5 Stars.
    • Currently 2/5 Stars.
Post Your Response
Please follow our guidelines for notes and 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:
  1. Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
  2. Unsupported assertions or statements
  3. Inflammatory or insulting language
Compose Your Response
 
Declare any competing interests.
Why should this posting be reviewed?

See also Guidelines for Notes, Comments and Corrections.

Identify Reason for Flagging
Thank You!

Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.

All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.