Letter to the Editor: Is Criticism About Inherent Biases in Rigorous Orthopaedic Trials Prone to Biases?

Author Reply to “Regarding ‘Subacromial Decompression in Patients With Shoulder Impingement With an Intact Rotator Cuff: An Expert Consensus Statement Using the Modified Delphi Technique Comparing North American to European Shoulder Surgeons’”

“…We 3 have previously responded to the criticism by Drs. Reito and Karjalainen, 4 who expressed concerns about potential biases and fierce resistance when "accepted treatments that stood the test of time" are challenged. 5 Similar to Drs.…”

Author Reply to “Is Criticism About Inherent Biases in Rigorous Orthopaedic Trials Prone to Biases?”

“…Reito and Karjalainen for their letter to the editor with regards to our level V evidence clinical guideline. 1,2 Subacromial arthroscopic decompression (SAD) in the presence of an intact rotator cuff is a controversial topic, and we welcome debate. In their letter to the editor, Reito and Karjalainen expressed concerns about biases and fierce resistance when "accepted treatments that stood the test in time" are challenged.…”

“…In their letter to the editor, Reito and Karjalainen expressed concerns about biases and fierce resistance when "accepted treatments that stood the test in time" are challenged. 1 The most updated definition of evidence-based medicine was revised in 2000 and defined evidence-based medicine as the "integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient value." 3 This means that the current best evidence also may be obtained from clinical studies such as case series, retrospective comparative studies, and basic science research.…”

“…We read with great interest the article "A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Suture Bridge and Medially Based Single-Row Rotator Cuff Repair in Medium-Sized Supraspinatus Tear" published recently in your journal. 1 The article compared clinical and imaging outcomes between 2 commonly used knot configurations. However, we would like to raise several concerns that need to be addressed by the author.…”

“…Lastly, there is a discrepancy in the number of patients present in the study for review. According to the abstract, Results section, Table 1, and Table 3 of Yamakado et al, 1 92 patients were available for analysis after 1 year. However, after the exclusion of 15 patients (as per the CONSORT flow chart), 91 patients should have been present at 1-year follow-up.…”