A critical appraisal of "A multicenter randomized double-blind study: comparison of the Epley, Semont, and Sham maneuvers for the treatment of posterior canal benign paroxysmal positional vertigo"

This paper is a critical appraisal of an article that compares the efficacy of 3 maneuvers in decreasing symptoms of Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV). I found this article using the Texas Tech Library Portal. The article contained both strengths and weaknesses in the sections of introduction, method, results, and discussion. Some strengths include the introduction providing a good explanation and delivering background information on what exactly BPPV is and ways to provoke symptoms. Another strength is the intervention of the experiment is easily replicable by some other individuals in the future, and the authors do a fantastic job of analyzing and explaining the results of the experiment. The article does not have many weaknesses, but those that are evident and apparent cannot be overlooked. The authors do not explain the process of how the assessors recorded the effects of the treatment, what tool was used, nor the procedure of data collection. In addition, the location of where the study took place was never mentioned. These things ultimately make the experiment irreplicable by other others in an additional experiment. In the end the weaknesses addressed in my paper generated too much skepticism and lead me to draw the conclusion that this is not a reliable source.