ArticleJMIR public health and surveillance2018
Comparative Analysis of Women With Notable Subjective Health Indicators Compared With Participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health: Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in JMIR public health and surveillance, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Update on Schnelle et al and Expression of Editorial Concern.JMIR research protocols · 2019Article
- Update on Schnelle et al and Expression of Editorial Concern.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2019Article
- Expression of Editorial Concern, Correction of Conflict of Interest and Affiliation.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Expression of Editorial Concern, Correction of Conflict of Interest and Affiliation, and Data Corrections.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
- Expression of concern · 2018-05-11Concerns/Issues about Data · Concerns/Issues about Results and/or Conclusions · Concerns/Issues about Third Party Involvement · Conflict of Interest · Investigation by Company/Institution · Investigation by Journal/Publisher · Objections by Third Party ·
- Erratum issued
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAt least six communities with unusually good health and longevity have been identified, but their lifestyles aren't adopted widely. Informal evidence suggests that women associated with Universal Medicine (UM), a complementary medicine health care organization in Eastern Australia and the United Kingdom with normal lifestyles, also have several unusual health indicators.
objectiveOur objective was to determine how UM participants compared with women in the Australian population at large on a variety of health indicators.
methodsIn an Internet survey conducted July to September 2015, a total of 449 female UM participants from 15 countries responded to 43 health indicator questions taken from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH).
resultsSurvey responses revealed large positive differences in mental and physical health when compared with the ALSWH respondents, except for abnormal Pap test and low iron history. Differences and corresponding effect size estimates (Cohen d; ≥0.8 is a high difference, ≥0.5 a medium and ≥0.2 a small one with P<.001 except where indicated) included body mass index (BMI; 1.11), stress level (0.20, P=.006), depression (0.44), summary physical (0.31) and mental health (0.37), general mental health (0.39), emotional (0.15, P=.009) and social functioning (0.22), vitality (0.58), and general health (0.49), as well as lower incidences of diabetes, hypertension, and thrombosis (P<.001 each). Neither education levels nor country of residence had predictive value. Neither education levels nor country of residence had predictive value. Age did not predict BMI.
conclusionsThe women's responses notably claim substantially lower levels of illness and disease than in the general Australian population.
trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12617000972325; https://www.anzctr. org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=373120&isReview=true (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/ 6wEDDn45O). INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR2-10.2106/7993.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.