Question: Eisenberg and colleagues 15 June 1993 used meta analysis to
Eisenberg and colleagues (15 June 1993) used meta- analysis to examine the effect of “cognitive therapies” such as biofeedback, meditation, and relaxation methods on blood pressure. Their abstract states that “cognitive interventions for essential hypertension are superior to no therapy but not superior to credible sham techniques” (p. 964). Here are some of the details from the text of the article: Mean blood pressure reductions were smallest when comparing persons experimentally treated with those randomly assigned to a credible placebo or sham intervention and for whom baseline blood pressure assessments were made during a period of more than 1 day. Under these conditions, individuals treated with cognitive behavioral therapy experienced a mean reduction in systolic blood pressure of 2.8 mm Hg (CI, – 0.8 to 6.4 mm Hg) . . . relative to controls (p. 967). The comparison included 12 studies involving 368 subjects. Do you agree with the conclusion in the abstract that cognitive interventions are not superior to credible sham techniques? What would be a better way to word the conclusion?
Answer to relevant QuestionsSuppose you have 20 tomato plants and want to know if fertilizing them will help them produce more fruit. You randomly assign 10 of them to receive fertilizer and the remaining 10 to receive none. You otherwise treat the ...A survey was sent to 50,000 employers but only 704 responded. The purpose of the survey was to find out how employers feel about the preparation of college graduates to work in their companies. a. Who do you think would be ...Science News (25 January 1995) reported a study on the relationship between levels of radon gas in homes and lung cancer. It was a case-control study, with 538 women with lung cancer and 1183 without lung cancer. The article ...Pick three of the possible problems with meta-analysis listed in Section 25.4, and discuss how they might apply to the reviews in the Cochrane Database. In Example 26.2, Janet’s handling of the fact that her data showed 26 volunteers in the control group when there should have been only 25.
Post your question