Response to: “Comparison of the effectiveness of high-intensity laser and ultrasound therapies in adhesive capsulitis: A randomized controlled study”

To the editor:

We read the article entitled “Comparison of the effectiveness of high-intensity laser and ultrasound therapies in adhesive capsulitis: A randomized controlled study” by Bilal Uysal et al. with great interest [1].

As far as we know, high-intensity laser and ultrasound therapy studies mainly focus on musculoskeletal pain management, such as knee osteoarthritis, disc herniation and myofascial pain syndrome. Although high-intensity laser and ultrasound therapy are widely used clinically for adhesive capsulitis, the studies are far from sufficient. This study will promote the development of high-intensity laser and ultrasound therapy in adhesive capsulitis and improve the quality of life of patients.

However, it is necessary for the authors to make some improvements in the study design. First, we noticed that the authors did not mention the relevant information of the clinical trial registration in the article, which does not comply with the related regulations for conducting clinical trials. We propose that the authors mention the clinical trial registration number of the study in the study design.

Second, the randomization process of this study was not clear enough. The authors state that patients were divided into two groups with a simple randomization method by using a table of random numbers created on a computer, but the exact process is not explained. The unclear randomization would be detrimental to our assessment of the scientific and rigor of the study. According to the CONSORT guidelines, we recommend that authors include randomization as a separate subheading and describe the randomization process in detail.

Third, the success of allocation concealment may affect the success of randomization, but the authors did not mention this detail in the article. We cannot judge whether the authors did not complete the allocation concealment in the study or simply did not mention it in the article, which is not conducive to our assessment of the rationality of randomization. Therefore, we suggest authors to describe the process of group concealment in detail so that readers can replicate the experiment.

In addition, due to the particularity of the study design, the study did not adopt a double-blind method. Only the biostatistician and evaluators who administered the outcome measures were blinded to the randomization. Consequently, the authors need to fully consider the limitations when interpreting the results of the study. Since there may be some subjective factors affecting the study results, we suggest that the authors and readers interpret the study results cautiously.