Abstract
To the Editor:
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the extensive Letter to the Editor by Dr. Bogduk who raises several important issues. However, we noted that not all contents of our cautious systematic review have been read carefully.
In our review,1 we could find no basis for Dr. Bogduk’s remarks on its “nihilistic” nature. In contrast, we have been very precise in following rules and regulations for making a systematic review. Because of the limited number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we applied a best evidence synthesis method.
We do not understand the criticism on the use of arbitrary numbers to define ”adequate” sample sizes. In none of the presented tables of quality scores were sample sizes used as quality assessment criteria. Furthermore, we did not imply that studies with fewer than 50 patients are not meaningful. In contrast, 5 of the 6 studies that were included had patient numbers less than 50. However, as already mentioned in our discussion section, we need to be aware of publication bias and false-positive results of systematic reviews when it concerns RCTs with only small numbers of patients. Therefore, the sentence was added that the evidence presented in this study may be too optimistic. [...]
We welcome the opportunity to comment on the extensive Letter to the Editor by Dr. Bogduk who raises several important issues. However, we noted that not all contents of our cautious systematic review have been read carefully.
In our review,1 we could find no basis for Dr. Bogduk’s remarks on its “nihilistic” nature. In contrast, we have been very precise in following rules and regulations for making a systematic review. Because of the limited number of randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), we applied a best evidence synthesis method.
We do not understand the criticism on the use of arbitrary numbers to define ”adequate” sample sizes. In none of the presented tables of quality scores were sample sizes used as quality assessment criteria. Furthermore, we did not imply that studies with fewer than 50 patients are not meaningful. In contrast, 5 of the 6 studies that were included had patient numbers less than 50. However, as already mentioned in our discussion section, we need to be aware of publication bias and false-positive results of systematic reviews when it concerns RCTs with only small numbers of patients. Therefore, the sentence was added that the evidence presented in this study may be too optimistic. [...]
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 439-441 |
| Number of pages | 3 |
| Journal | Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine |
| Volume | 27 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs |
|
| Publication status | Published - 2002 |
| Externally published | Yes |