Is the above not a blatant acknowledgement their trial was worthless, in the very paper reporting it? Seeming themselves to effectively suggest their findings too unreliable to influence clinical treatments involving physical function?Our trial has limitations. ... All outcomes were self-rated, which might lead to bias by expectation, although the effects of such self-rating are uncertain because of the mixed perception of GET.30 We did not measure any objective outcomes, such as actigraphy, which might have tested the validity of our self-rated measures of physical activity.
It's as if they think that by stating an absurd limitation of their trial methodology, that makes the issue go away so it must still be OK. Cloud cuckoo land.
If real scientists had to publish a self-crucifying limitation such as this ... wouldn't they conclude it was better not to publish at all? Or is it just publish and be damned with the outcome (yes I know there is a slight play on words )
Last edited: