Embitterment And Collaboration

Based on client’s current situation it is reasonable to give Styron “moderate” with current GAF score of 65. Styron stayed in hospital for nearly seven weeks and discharged with an improvement in his illness and his functions. All of his statements of “I began to get well, gradually but steadily” “the fantasies of self destruction disappeared” “suicidal notions dwindled then disappeared” “had first dream in many months” indicated that he was in the process of Partial recovery. Not only he started to feel “peace” in his mind but also he was able to attend hospital group activities. Styron has high adaptive level of defensive functions at current state.

When upset, I engage in recurrent suicidal behaviors, gestures, threats, or self-injurious behavior such as cutting, burning or hitting myself.

The researchers here described what methods were used to produce comparable groups by analyzing risk of bias, and determined whether blinding was used. The quality assessments were reviewed by 2 authors and the statistical heterogeneity in each meta-analysis was assessed using the T2, I2 and Chi2 statistics. (Mackeen, Berghella &Larsen,

Abstracts were perused to ascertain relevance prior to reading of the full-text article. Scrutiny of the full-text articles was performed to determine their appropriateness and adherence to inclusion criteria of the review. Assessment of methodological quality of the studies that met the inclusion criteria was performed. Studies of poor quality were excluded (Hemmingway & Brereton, 2009). Extraction of information from the articles that met the inclusion criteria related to the research question was performed. In cases where results were reported by the same research, in more than one publication, review of the articles was performed in combination to extract the desired information. Extraction of the following data was performed that included country in which research was conducted; aim/objective of the research; type of study, study population; process of data collection; results; and information related to reliability and

The results of this study were quite mixed, some of the results matched up with more recent research done, but some of the results did not. I will further

The authors provided the information needed to address confidence in the study results. They described the risk of bias and the strength of evidence for each study. Therefore, the difference in the risk of bias explains the difference and variability in results (13). They reported moderate to high risk of bias and low level of evidence might result in decreasing the confidence in the treatment effect (15-17).

The authors recognized that the study had limitations. It had a small sample size that included a limited number of males. They also stated that for the benefits to be as effective, the

Since this study lacked statistical power in determining significant correlations due our small sample size (N = 62), we emphasize the effect sizes of our results using Cohen’s d. We utilized independent samples t-tests

As the study was only a pilot, the main limitation of this study is the small sample size. The initial sample consisted of 50 participants. Unfortunately, it reduced to 36 participants after 12 weeks due to death, illness and loss of interest in participating. This might be the biggest reason of non-significant

Thank you for involving me in the review of this manuscript. Bias and/or risk of bias, is a very critical topic in health research methodology. This is a project generally well-conducted and a manuscript well written; but my major concern is whether the researchers answered a scientifically meaningful question. And consequently, I am concerned with the implication of the product of this study. I recommend to reject this manuscript.

Methods: A retrospective literature research was conducted using several scholarly databases to collect and review information relevant to the hypothesis. The search engines included but were not limited to Google Scholar, PubMed, MedlinePlus, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The research was not limited by country of origin but was restricted to publications in English. Articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were rejected and studies that met the exclusion criteria were eliminated from the data pool.

Similar to the imprecision assessment of treatment effect evidence, the imprecision assessment for relative importance of outcomes scrutinise the confidence interval and the sample size. What is challenging is because diversified study designs, result presentations or methodologies are used, usually there is no confidence interval constructed, or there is not a simple way to calculate the minimum sample size with sufficient power to produce a narrow estimate for the relative importance outcomes.[53]

et al., 2010). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify specific level of psychological

Use of null hypothesis significance testing, while excellent in theory, has its own inherent limitations. Cohen (1994) suggests that the null hypothesis, does not give us the answer to questions we

Such conflicting guidelines may be due to a lack of high quality RCTs. For example, a major limitation to the findings of the meta-analysis by Manzanares et al. (2012) was that most of the reviewed articles were small single center RCTs. Conclusions drawn from small RCTs suffer from threatened external validity and limited generalizability. Fortunately, the recent publication of large multi-center RCTs provide additional literature to test the validity of these older studies and the resulting guidelines. The focus of this review is to determine if recent RCT publications support the supplementation of