Skip to main content
. 2021 Oct 28;10(21):5020. doi: 10.3390/jcm10215020

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Relative Risk of success of the evidence-based personalised approach (EPBA) to paired RCTs [8,9]. Results in terms of Efficacy Analysis (EA) and Intention-to-Treat (ITT) are compared to the observational arms of each of the two studies. We used the Relative Risk (RR) of success since all data in RCTs and EBPA were collected prospectively. A higher RR shows the probability for a patient to achieve better results with one treatment vs. the other. The vertical line corresponds to the natural history data collected in every single RCT for the first four lines (for the original RCT, the first two lines, for the EBPA subgroups, the second two lines), while that in the last four corresponds to the comparison group coming from the RCTs (lines 3–4 to controls/natural history, lines 5–6 to the RCT treated group). The RCT on physiotherapeutic scoliosis-specific exercises (PSSE) [10] has not been compared since baseline populations were statistically significantly different. The same was true for the subgroups when we exclusively applied the treatment proposed in the RCTs.