Nice abstract, except the author did not define the acronym STR in this usage, making it somewhat less helpful for a researcher who is not involved in this field of study.
What an interesting, potentially impactful collaboration between ASPPH, DOT, and NHTSA. Traffic safety is a major contribution of public health, although few recognize it as such.
A well-designed, adequately powered analysis of an important potential therapy, that unfortunately did not see any statistically significant effect. The abstract is a bit confusing in that the authors conclude "MBSR was found to be ineffective in lowering BP by 6 mmHg or more among stage-1 unmedicated hypertensives," but the methods do not mention that study eligibility included unmedicated subjects.
HS = History Section
RUSA = Reference and User Services Association (A division of the American Library Association)
Hard to tell all this from the description.
The journal has recently announced that "As of 1st September 2021, Trials will no longer be considering papers on the topic of complementary and alternative medicine." The rationale behind this decisions is that" in-depth subject knowledge to properly evaluate papers on the topic of complementary and alternative medicine to assess the intervention, the design of the trials, as well as the primary and secondary outcomes." This seems sensible, as research into complementary and alternative therapies do indeed present special challenges in the design of trials. However, it is not clear where the line will be drawn, as there is often a very large area in which "standard" and "alternative" overlap.
A valiant effort to apply the economic theory of rational choice to the use of homeopathic remedies. However, the authors' introductory statement about "undisputed statistical evidence" is not clear.
论文