60 research outputs found
Vitamin C and the common cold: a retrospective analysis of Chalmers’ review.
In 1975 Thomas Chalmers analyzed the possible effect of vitamin C on the common cold by calculating the average difference in the duration of cold episodes in vitamin C and control groups in seven placebo-controlled studies. He found that episodes were 0.11 +/- 0.24 (SE) days shorter in the vitamin C groups and concluded that there was no valid evidence to indicate that vitamin C is beneficial in the treatment of the common cold. Chalmers' review has been extensively cited in scientific articles and monographs. However, other reviewers have concluded that vitamin C significantly alleviates the symptoms of the common cold. A careful analysis of Chalmers' review reveals serious shortcomings. For example, Chalmers did not consider the amount of vitamin C used in the studies and included in his meta-analysis was a study in which only 0.025-0.05 g/day of vitamin C was administered to the test subjects. For some studies Chalmers used values that are inconsistent with the original published results. Using data from the same studies, we calculated that vitamin C (1-6 g/day) decreased the duration of the cold episodes by 0.93 +/- 0.22 (SE) days; the relative decrease in the episode duration was 21%. The current notion that vitamin C has no effect on the common cold seems to be based in large part on a faulty review written two decades ago
Letter from Lemuel J. Standefer, Montgomery, Alabama, to E. W. Peck, Tuscaloosa, Alabama, July 17, 1868
Radiosensitivity of defined populations of lymphocytes. VI. Functional, structural, and biochemical consequences of in vitro irradiation.
Scanning electron microscopy analysis of defined populations of lymphocytes irradiated in vitro. Abstr.
Strengths-based counseling 2.0: Continuing the discussion
This book is written from the perspective of many authors discussing their work as to what they believe to be a strengths-based model. Each has his or her own approach and view of how a strengthsbased model fits their own unique work situation. Although the client populations and clinical settings may be different, two components remain constant: (a) the clinician’s belief that using a strengths-based model is more effective than using the traditional medical model of pathologizing clients and (b) a rejection of the notion that the clinicians have more knowledge about the needs of the client than does the client him-or herself
- …