Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Ford, Jon J
• Hahne, Andrew John
• Surkitt, Luke D
• Chan, Alexander Y P
• Richards, Matthew C
• Slater, Sarah L
• Pizzari, Tania
• Davidson, Megan
• Taylor, Nicholas F

Titel

STOPS trial versus Costa et al: a more accurate analysis

Ist Teil von

• British journal of sports medicine, 2019-07, Vol.53 (14), p.914-916

Ort / Verlag

England: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine

Erscheinungsjahr

2019

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Travers et al argue that the recovery trajectory of the STOPS comparison group (guideline-based advice) was worse than for participant data from a meta-analysis of cohort studies by Costa et al.3 They propose the reason for this was our advice group receiving a pathoanatomical explanation as a component of the advice intervention, which may have had a negative effect. [...]at 1-year follow-up, the STOPS advice group may have had superior outcomes compared with the Costa et al participants, given the entire 95% CI for this STOPS data point falls below the Costa et al trendline (figure 2). On the basis of a scientifically appropriate and accurate interpretation of the Costa et al meta-analysis, it is clear that the proposition that the STOPS recovery trajectories are worse than expected is wrong. [...]questioning the conclusions of the STOPS trial on the basis of these data is not appropriate. [...]this approach is consistent with recent high-quality clinical guidelines.18 Finally with our RCT design, we would like to emphasise that both groups received the same advice intervention. [...]the between-group differences were due to the individualised physiotherapy rather than the advice component.