Intended for healthcare professionals

  1. Research
  2. Efficacy of...
  3. Efficacy of standardised manual therapy and home exercise programme for chronic rotator cuff disease: randomised placebo controlled trial
CCBYNC Open access
Research

Efficacy of standardised manual therapy and home exercise programme for chronic rotator cuff disease: randomised placebo controlled trial

BMJ 2010; 340 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c2756 (Published 08 June 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;340:c2756

All rapid responses

Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.

From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.

The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.

Conclusions not supported by the data

In their report into the effects of a physiotherapy programme for
chronic rotator cuff disease, Bennell et al. report that they saw 'greater
improvements in ... health related quality of life as measured by the
assessment of quality of life instrument'. Unfortunately this conclusion
is not supported by the data they present in their table. The mean quality
of life (aQoL) scores were 0.7 for both groups at all 3 time points
(baseline, 11 weeks, and 22 week follow up). Further the table reports the
adjusted difference between groups and 22 weeks as 0.0.

This highlights the importance of the reader investigating the data
presented in tables rather than relying on author's conclusions. Of most
concern is that this conclusion is also presented in the abstract; readers
who only have access to the abstract may be misled by this.

Competing interests: No competing interests

22 September 2010
Philip J Peacock
Academic Clinical Fellow in Paediatrics
University of Bristol
Back to top