Let's decide what would be convincing, conduct randomized trials with rigorous comparison conditions, and report tests of moderation and publication bias in meta-analyses.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Which client with generalized anxiety disorder benefits from a mindfulness ecological momentary intervention versus a self-monitoring app? Developing a multivariable machine learning predictive model.Journal of anxiety disorders · 2024
   Article
2. Selecting and describing control conditions in mobile health randomized controlled trials: a proposed typology.NPJ digital medicine · 2023
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Funding

Abstract