The greater improvement of integrated patients also requires qualification. First, integration status was determined by some of the same scales that were subsequently analyzed as outcome measures. After certain criteria are used to differentiate groups, showing that the groups differed on those criteria is tautological. Second, performing a large number of statistical tests on correlated psychiatric scales while failing to control family-wise error rate inflates the probability of finding main and interaction effects involving integration. Third, there may exist an unreported significant difference between the number of medications (mean=4.4, SD=2.3) prescribed at baseline for the 29 nonintegrated subjects and the number of medications (mean and SD not reported) prescribed for eight integrated subjects for whom these data were available. By using data reported in a separate article by Ellason and Ross for a subset of 30 subjects from the same group R461559BCECFJHA, we computed a significant difference (calculated for unequal group sizes and variances) between the number of medications for the 22 nonintegrated (mean=4.5, SD=1.8) and for the eight integrated (mean=2.3, SD=0.8) subjects (t=4.62, df=28, p<0.001). If this result can be confirmed in the updated group, it, along with the greater level of depression reported in nonintegrated subjects, suggests that a higher level, or different type, of pathology may be predictive of nonintegration and less improvement at follow-up.