A reason for the less positive results in Europe when compared with the U.S. could be that in studies where comparative (standard) mental health practice is poor, effect sizes of ACT are higher [ 10, 22].
Treatment of PTSD patients is difficult and currently used pharmacological therapies, mainly serotonergic drugs, suffer from delayed onset, poor efficacy (effect sizes are relative small and many patients do not respond at all) and relapses [3], [4], [5].
Reaction time has also a poor effect in both size and morphology of the NPs, except when varying extract concentration.
Although single clinical trials can demonstrate statistical superiority of analgesic over placebo, random variation means that, if small, they provide a poor estimate of effect size [ 10].
While there is some evidence of a small effect of poor quality on effect size in LBP trials from other work, we would welcome future investigations using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, since the judgement criteria in this tool can be applied to either pragmatic or efficacy trials without prejudice.
For studies involving comparisons between poor sleepers and healthy controls, effect size estimates were computed for task-relevant dependent variables.
Moderate responsiveness was demonstrated among physical and psychosocial functioning; however, the effect size was poor for school function (Table 3).
Evidence available for this developmental period is limited to data from a single birth cohort [ 133] and relates to SSD only, indicating a medium effect size for poor cognitive functioning as an antecedent of SSD.
While this suggests that equipoise may no longer be an issue, the small effect size and poor quality of many of the studies included in the review, as well as the lack of data on cost-effectiveness, indicates that the situation is not straightforward.
#Note: For the effect size calculations the poor health group was nominated as the 'control group'.
