Results: Compared to the control group, systolic and diastolic bl

Results: Compared to the control group, systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased significantly with unloaded breathing by means of 13.5 mmHg (95% CI 11.3 to 15.7) and 7.0 mmHg (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5), respectively (laboratory measures). With loaded breathing, the reductions were greater at 18.8 mmHg (95% CI 16.1 to 21.5) and 8.6 mmHg (95% CI 6.8 to 10.4), respectively. The improvement in Gefitinib systolic blood pressure was 5.3 mmHg (95% CI 1.0 to 9.6) greater with loaded compared to unloaded breathing. Heart rate declined by 8 beats/min (95% CI 6.5 to 10.3) with unloaded breathing, and 9 beats/min (95% CI 5.6 to 12.2) with loaded breathing. Very similar measures of blood pressure and heart

rate were obtained by the patients at home. Conclusion: Home-based training with a simple device is

well tolerated by patients and produces clinically valuable reductions in blood pressure. Adding an inspiratory load of 20 cmH2O enhanced the decrease in systolic blood pressure. Trial registration: NCT007919689. The error occurred in the final page make up. The journal apologises to the authors and to our readers. “
“In our systematic review (Leaver et al 2010) published in Vol 55 No 2 of this journal there were two material errors that occurred during the data extraction phase of the study. These errors, which occurred due to misinterpretation of the outcomes reported Capmatinib in two studies, impacted on our DNA ligase meta-analysis of the effectiveness of

laser therapy for neck pain. In the pilot study by Chow et al (2004), Northwick Park Disability scores were reported as percentages. In the main trial by the same author (Chow et al 2006) it was not apparent that these data were presented as raw scores and were incorrectly extracted as percentage scores. Additionally, in the trial by Gur et al (2004), disability outcomes reported using Neck Pain and Disability Index met our inclusion criteria and were excluded erroneously. We have subsequently conducted meta-analysis of disability outcomes for laser therapy with these data extraction errors corrected. Disability outcomes for laser therapy at short-term follow up are presented in the revision to Figure 4 (below) and at medium-term in the revision to Figure 5 (below) and in the results tables in the eAddenda. The pooled outcomes from three trials (Dundar et al 2007, Gur et al 2004, Ozdemir et al 2001) showed no significant difference between laser and control (WMD –26, 95% CI –58 to 6) at the conclusion of a course of treatment. Pooled outcomes from three trials (Chow et al 2004, Chow et al 2006, Gur et al 2004) that reported medium-term disability outcomes showed a statistically significant difference in favour of laser therapy over control (WMD –10, 95% CI –15 to –6). Full numeric data for the amended meta-analysis are available in the eAppendix to this paper on the journal website.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>