The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2005;87:1882-1883.
© 2005 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Related articles in JBJS
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Fox, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Giron, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Fox, A. E.
Right arrow Articles by Giron, F.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts

Anna E. Fox and David S. Johnson

Corresponding author: Anna E. Fox
Stepping Hill Hospital
Stockport, United Kingdom
annafox2k@btopenworld.com

Letter to the Editor

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts

Anna E. Fox and David S. Johnson

Corresponding author: Anna E. Fox
Stepping Hill Hospital
Stockport, United Kingdom
annafox2k@btopenworld.com

The first 20% of the full text of this article appears below.

To The Editor:

We read with interest the excellent article "Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts. A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial" (2004;86:2143-55), by Aglietti et al. However, we feel that it cannot be described as a "randomized" trial. Randomization was achieved by a "strictly alternating" pattern of treatment allocation, which is open to sources of potential bias. Despite this method of allocation, the two groups are very well matched, although there is no discussion in the article as to whether a stratification process was used to achieve this.

The term "randomized" has a precise statistical meaning in that each patient has the same probability of receiving either treatment, independent of the previous patient's allocation1. This is clearly not . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Francesco Giron, MD1

1 First Orthopaedic Clinic
University of Florence
Largo Pietro Palagi
1 50139 Florence, Italy
ortosec@unifi.it


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Related articles in JBJS:

Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Bone-Patellar Tendon-Bone Compared with Double Semitendinosus and Gracilis Tendon Grafts. A Prospective, Randomized Clinical Trial
Paolo Aglietti, Francesco Giron, Roberto Buzzi, Flavio Biddau, and Francesco Sasso
JBJS 2004 86: 2143-2155. [Abstract] [Full Text]