From a small sample it is cautiously concluded that imagery rescripting may show promise as a module in cognitive-behavioral therapy for BDD, and is worthy of further investigation.
Furthermore, these changes on surgical samples, need to be cautiously interpreted as surgical samples were subjected to different fixation conditions (Devries et al, 2005).
While the conclusions from any individual analysis should be viewed cautiously because sample sizes were small (range = two to 32), collectively our analysis would suggest that even if small changes in life history parameters are altered by Bt toxins, they are not reflected in altered levels of field abundance in Bt crops.
Estimates of ϕst between each pair of adjacent collection localities were all significantly different from zero, although we treat this allele frequency based result cautiously because sample sizes were modest, particularly at sites D and E. The highest ϕst estimate was between samples from Sites B and D (the single individual genotype from Site C was excluded from this analysis).
Ethograms and transitions constructed from data collected via scan sampling should be interpreted cautiously; for example, one of the first papers examining male behavior in Drosophila used scan sampling every 1.5 sec to account for the short duration of some behaviors (Bastock and Manning 1955).
Therefore, norm tables from different samples should be interpreted cautiously.
Although any comparison with other study samples and populations should be cautiously interpreted because of the differences in sample sizes, methods and appraisal standards, the observed rate of suicidal behavior in our subjects (7.64 %, including 7.27 % for suicidal ideation and 1.31 % for suicide attempt) was in line with the reports from China [ 5, 6] and other countries [ 7, 24].
Furthermore, the patient group for our study was small, meaning population inference should be treated cautiously, but the sample size was certainly equivalent to those used in many experimental eye movement studies in the literature.
The results of subgroup analyses should be interpreted cautiously, as the sample size was relatively small.
Finally, the generalizability of the findings given the restricted sample used must be viewed cautiously.
As these effect sizes are based on a relatively small sample, they must be interpreted cautiously [ 61].
