Author Response

We appreciate Stratford's interest in our trial¹ and thank him for his comments regarding the interpretation of our results as it relates to the minimal important difference (MID).

In the section below, and in answer to Stratford's concerns, we have included the proportion of successes in the real and sham treatment groups with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). This proportion was based on the number of participants who met the criteria for an MID using the 100-point Foot Health Status Questionnaire (ie, 13 points) and the 100-mm visual analog scale (ie, 19 mm). Stratford also suggested that it might help if we provide the difference in the proportions of success between the 2 groups with a 95% CI on the difference.

Based on the results from the Foot Health Status Questionnaire, 17/43 (39.5%) (95% CI=26.3%, 54.4%) of the participants in the sham treatment group met the criteria for a within-group MID (ie, 13 points). In the group receiving real dry needling, 28/41 (68.3%) (95% CI=53.0%, 80.4%) of the participants met the criteria for a within-group MID. This finding equated to an absolute risk reduction of 28.8% (95% CI=0.07%, 46.7%).

For the results relating to the visual analog scale, 19/43 (44.2%) (95% CI=30.4%, 8.9%) of the participants in the sham treatment group met the criteria for a within-group MID of 19 mm. In the real dry need ling group, 31/41 (75.6%) (95% CI=60.7%, 86.2%) of the participants met the criteria for a within-group MID. This finding equated to an absolute risk reduction of 31.4% (95% CI=10.5%, 48.8%).

• © 2014 American Physical Therapy Association