Only 52% of those who had provided care for COVID-19 patients indicated they would take the vaccine if offered?? While this study was done before vaccinations were actually available, that number is still stunningly high.
This abstract leaves me somewhat confused about how the "systematic and bibliometric review" was done, as well as what their aims and conclusions were. It begins with pointing out the large variability among different brands and batches of kombucha, but concludes that their review highlights opportunities to "explore the largely unchecked relations between kombucha and its claimed health benefits." Did they review articles that looked at the variability of the beverages, or its health effects? Or somehow, both?
I am surprised that this journal allows such grammar in a published abstract: ". . . birth outcomes of anomalies did not worse as the stillbirth proportion reduced."
Although a small study group was used, this is an excellent start to determining this supplement's efficacy in treating diabetes and high triglycerides.
A succinct and well-written abstract, but I think the concluding claim has not been established, at least in humans: "Its interference in intestinal flora reduces levels of monosaccharides and suppresses diabetes mellitus complications development."
This is a nice summary, but the last sentence does not make sense: "OBB possessed favorable hypoglycemic and pancreatic β-cells protective effects, which may stand a huge potential to be further developed into a promising anti-diabetes candidate."
This seems to be an important study, but the abstract has several grammar errors and the repeated dashes (quite unnecessary) make it difficult to follow (e.g. "Diseases of the respiratory organs were registered more frequently among deceased patients in 25.3% and 16.5% consequently (p = 0.04),". I have to wonder why the journal does not require standard presentation of numbers. Furthermore, the "Design and method" section only gives information about subjects health conditions, and nothing about analytical approach, etc.
This abstract really could have used some proofreading: "Of all 1239 positive cases, 159 (12.83%) had known with hypertension ant this group was significantly older . . ."
Journal