This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Frank Vanclay, MSocSci; Surya Shah, MEd, OTR/L
Department of Occupational Therapy University of Queensland St Lucia, Qld 4067, Australia

Arch Neurol. 1989;46(12):1270-1271.

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

To the Editor.

—There are several major problems with the article by Heinemann et al¹ that severely reduce the validity of the findings. The fundamental issues of sample appropriateness, diagnosis, comorbidity, timing, and use of an activities of daily living measure of unknown reliability and validity are ignored.² There are numerous inconsistencies in the sample size at different analysis stages, particularly relating to measures of improvement. Other problems include the nonstatement of the number deceased, and the lack of comment about the small number of patients admitted from home (15% were admitted from home, while 75% were discharged to home). The lack of sufficient information may be due to inadequate documentation and poor extraction of data, which, unfortunately, invalidates the results.

The statistical assumptions of the ² test (independence of variables) seem to have been violated. Regression analysis, not including nonsignificant variables, and the reporting of raw . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?