On 2016 Feb 08, Mwidimi Ndosi commented:

My research student Hannah Cumpstey picked this up in the methods section: "A p-value >0.05 was accepted as being statistically different" (Akbari et al, 2007, P.633).

In the results section however, the interpretation of the null hypothesis significance testing seem to follow the conventional significance level, where a p=0.03 is interpreted as significant and p=0.95 not significant (p.634).

Could the authors please comment, just to reassure other readers?

Akbari A, Moodi H, Ghiasi F, Sagheb HM, Rashidi H. (2007) Effects of vacuum-compression therapy on healing of diabetic foot ulcers: randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 44(5): 631-6.

On 2016 Feb 08, Mwidimi Ndosi commented:

My research student Hannah Cumpstey picked this up in the methods section: "A p-value >0.05 was accepted as being statistically different" (Akbari et al, 2007, P.633).

In the results section however, the interpretation of the null hypothesis significance testing seem to follow the conventional significance level, where a p=0.03 is interpreted as significant and p=0.95 not significant (p.634).

Could the authors please comment, just to reassure other readers?

Akbari A, Moodi H, Ghiasi F, Sagheb HM, Rashidi H. (2007) Effects of vacuum-compression therapy on healing of diabetic foot ulcers: randomized controlled trial. J Rehabil Res Dev. 44(5): 631-6.