If you don't remember your password, you can reset it by entering your email address and clicking the Reset Password button. You will then receive an email that contains a secure link for resetting your password
If the address matches a valid account an email will be sent to __email__ with instructions for resetting your password
shows a between-group difference on the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33; 0 points [worst] to 100 points [best]), favoring operative treatment (mean difference: 3.46 points; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.07 to 6.86).
We congratulate the authors on the first meta-analysis for this very important topic, but unfortunately the forest plot presented by Dwyer et al.
was published, we were surprised to see that a 2-point between-group difference could yield statistical significance with only 180 subjects. We contacted the authors at BMJ Rapid Response with our concern (see https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l185/rr-4), who informed us that they had used a centimeter scale (0 to 10 cm) instead of the usual millimeter scale (0 to 100 mm) (see https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l185/rr-5). Unfortunately, this is not clear in the BMJ paper.
should have been 20.4 points (95% CI 13.2 to 27.6), not 2 points (95% CI 1.2 to 2.8) (https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l185/rr-5). This has, based on what seems to be incorrect reporting using the iHOT-33 scaling by Palmer et al. in BMJ,
We have conducted a revised meta-analysis including the correct data and scale in millimeters (Fig 1). For transparency, we present both a fixed- and random-effects model, but we prefer to use the random-effects model, since the 3 studies in the meta-analysis 1) concern very different populations (military versus general population), (2) use different eligibility criteria, and (3) lack a transparent description of the nonoperative treatment and postoperative rehabilitation.
Our revised analysis (random-effects model) shows a between-group difference of 11.19 points (95% CI 1.47 to 20.92) favoring operative treatment (Fig 1). We urgently encourage Arthroscopy to submit the relevant Errata for both meta-analysis and editorial commentary, alongside our letter to the editor, for transparency and to avoid any possible misunderstandings.