No, it's compared to a normal rate of 32.8%.
The paper compares their numbers in their fashion, my post compares their numbers in my way. The statement is my statement. The 26% achieved in the study in a certain population I am comparing to a nationwide survey of 28%. This is a measure of the technique(as practiced in the US). The 32.5% is a measure of the clinic from Jan-Nov 1998. It may or may not be indicative of what should be expected in the study as a whole. Doctors may not be the same etc. etc. They are all data points. What can be said of the 32.5% is that it may be a closer measure of the expectations of the study than the U.S. survey.