It is a pity that the otherwise superb paper by Nicole Le Saux and associates1 is marred by some mangled syntax. If after reading a sentence 3 times you are still uncertain that you have understood it correctly, then the sentence is badly written. I guessed at the meaning of the first sentence in the Interpretation section of the abstract for this paper, but it might help if the authors could remove at least one negative so that I can verify whether I guessed correctly. And what about the term “noninferiority” in the article title and elsewhere? Why not “equivalence” or, better still, simply refer to “a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial”? Readers are likely to be less intimidated once the unfamiliar word is removed.
This nitpicking aside, the study is exemplary. However, it will be interesting to see whether the favourable results for fever and pain on days 1 and 2 will persuade parents to prefer an antibiotic over watchful waiting.
Barry Pless Director, Clinical Research Montreal Children's Hospital Research Institute Editor, Injury Prevention Montréal, Que.
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
Reference
- 1.Le Saux N, Gaboury I, Baird M, Klassen TP, MacCormick J, Blanchard C, et al. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled noninferiority trial of amoxicillin for clinically diagnosed acute otitis media in children 6 months to 5 years of age. CMAJ 2005;172(3):335-41. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]