Erschienen in:
01.10.2008 | Author's Reply
Answer to the letter to the editor of J. Hebert et al. concerning “Hancock MJ, Maher CG, Latimer J, Herbert RD, McAuley JH (2008) Independent evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for spinal manipulative therapy: a randomised controlled trial. Epub ahead of publication DOI:10.1007/s00586-008-0679-9”
verfasst von:
M. J. Hancock, C. G. Maher, R. D. Herbert
Erschienen in:
European Spine Journal
|
Ausgabe 10/2008
Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten
Excerpt
The primary concern of the letter to editor from Drs Hebert and Perle revolves around the fact that in our trial [
4] the spinal manipulative therapy was delivered in a manner that was at the discretion of the therapists. In our trial, most patients received low velocity techniques while in the original trial by Childs et al. [
2] all therapists were required to use the same single high velocity technique. We see this as strength of the analysis, not a weakness, because the aim of our analysis was to see if the clinical prediction rule developed by Childs and colleagues [
2] would generalize to other forms of spinal manipulative therapy selected by highly skilled and experienced clinicians. …