You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Criticisms of the VAPOUR trial in a recent commentary are unsubstantiated and incorrect
  1. William Clark1,
  2. Paul Bird2,
  3. Terry Diamond2,
  4. Peter Gonski3,
  5. Elizabeth Barnes4,
  6. Val Gebski4
  1. 1 Interventional Radiology, St George Private Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  2. 2 Univsersity of New South Wales, St George and Sutherland Clinical School, Kogarah, New South Wales, Australia
  3. 3 University of New South Wales - Randwick Campus, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, Randwick, New South Wales, Australia
  4. 4 University of Sydney - Camperdown and Darlington Campus, NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
  1. Correspondence to William Clark, St George Private Hospital Interventional Radiology, 1 South Street, Sydney, New South Wales, 2217, Australia; williamxrayclark{at}bigpond.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ebmed-2017-110737

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    We are concerned by commentary1 about the VAPOUR trial2 written by authors of two previous masked vertebroplasty trials.3 4 Having participated in the larger of these trials, INVEST,3 we adopted similar trial methodology in VAPOUR but restricted patient inclusion criteria to fractures <6 weeks duration causing severe pain (table 1).

    View this table:
    • In this window
    • In a new window
    Table 1

    Comparison of inclusion criteria, baseline fracture duration and NRS pain measures, baseline hospitalisation status prior to enrolment, placebo and masking analysis, crossover and primary endpoints in the three masked vertebroplasty trials that have been published

    The commentary speculates that …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.