>Your colleague should note that Buchbinder was the lead author on the 2002
>JAMA article, a negative ESWT article that has received significant
>critism. 
 
I think you should get your american "colleague" to read this article and actually come back and tell us what was wrong with the research methodology? Why slander the author like that? As for "has received significant critism" - only from those who just plain do not like the outcome -- I have yet to find anyone who has come to a valid criticism of the methodology!!
 
This was a soundly designed study. The research question was about the effectvieness of ESWT on shorter duration symptoms. The methodlogy was set up to determine that. They found it didn't. Perhaps someone could explain to me, what is actualy wrong with that??? Why bag it just becasue you do not like the results.
 
>I would have liked to see a non-
>biased author perform a literature review.
 
Thats rubbish - they are not anti-ESWT (I know the authors and they use ESWT a lot for plantar fasciitis).... why slander them? The NEJM has a peer review process ...
 
> ESWT does not appear to work any better than placebo for patients
> with less than 6 months of symptoms. 
 
Which is exactly the hypothesis that they set out to test.  I ask what is actually wrong with the methodology of the original study? ---apart from the fact that some just don't like the outcome???
 
CP
 
 

-----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was distributed by the Podiatry JISCmail list server

All opinions and assertions contained in this message are those of
the original author. The listowner(s) and the JISCmail service take
no responsibility for the content.

to leave the Podiatry email list send a message containing the text
leave podiatry
to [log in to unmask]

Please visit http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk for any further information
-----------------------------------------------------------------