This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Evidence-Based Medicine  • Facial Plastic Surgery, Other  • Alert me on articles by topic

David Reiter, MD, DMD

Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(2):140-141.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

We are grateful to Rhee for his interest and enthusiasm, and we agree with many of his points. But we must respectfully disagree on a few key ones, which we will address in the order in which he introduces them.

Our null hypothesis is not that "a keloid has a 50% likelihood of improvement by chance alone." It might well be stated as the presumption that an observer has an even chance of reporting that a keloid improved after treatment if he or she did not provide that treatment. We believe this because there is a plethora of published treatment methods that subjectively suggest dramatic short-term response (based largely on observation and questions about patient satisfaction), but all have failed to achieve gold standard status. Results considered good when observed in the treatment cohort of a study of one management method are considered poor . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Comparing Apples to Oranges in Meta-analysis Studies
John S. Rhee
Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2007;9(2):139-140.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT