Fascinating! The Republican Party, which has aligned itself with an "anti-science" stance in recent decades, actually employed a rather rigorous model in assessing risk for its convention.
This is helpful information for the person looking to continue challenging hiking in the face of increasing age or mobility, and the article is well-written. However, the Methods section is unacceptably vague. This study could have been much more useful had PRISMA, Cochrane, or other formal guidelines been followed.
There is some important information missing from the write-up of this study. First, the abstract does not indicate what the acronyms HOT and MOD stand for (summer and fall, respectively). Further, although the study population could have included participants between the ages of 18 and 40, only traditionally college-aged people were recruited (i.e. late teens-early 20s), and no description of recruitment efforts were reported. Finally, only 9 individuals completed the study. Although statistical techniques were employed to identify some results of significance, such small sample size calls the results into question, as participants able to hike is not a rare condition.
Interesting--the trajectory of these laws (usually described as "eugenic" laws) in India differs quite a bit compared to the US, where they were adopted by the states during the early years of the 20th century, and repealed by the 1970s, whereas this paper describes their counterparts as being promulgated in the 1950s and continued on the books at least through 2015.
Although there is some comparative analysis of these laws, this article's main function seems to be a review of what is known on the topic of school sports-related concussion. Interesting that only 4/47 laws have any kind of penalty. It would be worthwhile to do a more rigorous analysis as to whether the laws have had any impact.
Nicely written abstract. Suggestion: include a bit more detail about years of study (all dates-Sept 2019?) and quality of study, and reduce detail regarding statistical significance tests.
Important study with an effective abstract. So much for the narrative often perpetuated by pro-gun advocates, that such regulation does not save lives. It's interesting that the homicides that were also accompanied by perpetrator suicides had a lower effect size.
Neither the title nor the abstract for this study are particularly helpful in helping the reader decide whether there is no information to be found in the article.
I don't understand why the Conclusions section states "This study found no difference in recorded adherence or satisfaction between our two groups." while the Results section reports that a smaller proportion (p = 0.009) of patients reported altering doses in the medical practice group compared to the researcher group.
That said, the final point, " Every aspect of survey administration should be carefully considered as it may confer important affects (sic) on responses." (However, the proper word here should be "effects.")
Article