Originally posted by LindaRacine
View Post
It is interesting to read Lori Dolans comment from the other forum offering Dr Nachemson’s take on the Braist study:
Dr. Nachemson was on the protocol planning committee for BrAIST. He felt it was a worthy, although very difficult, undertaking. He felt there were still questions to answer.
As Sharon points out, that curve stratification is just one of potentially many other factors to consider. For example, the whole Risser 0 thing that Sanders noted. Girls are usually Risser 0 for the first 5 stages (out of 8) on the digital skeletal age (DSA) assessment scale. And there is a difference in expected outcome for a specific curve in a girl with DSA of 1 compared to a DSA of 5.
So, if you take 100 girls risser 0 and put them into two groups (braced and unbraced) and then it turns out that most of the unbraced girls were DSA 1 and the braced girls were DSA 5, the results would surely show that bracing was effective. (and of course, the converse would show exactly the opposite results).
BTW, Sharon, your point about a possible reason why Dolan excluded the exercise and bracing studies from the metanalysis is a good one. I had not thought of that.
Comment