[nhumrich]

Its called the abstract. And its the first section of every official paper.

Right at the end of the abstract:

> Overall, results showed that breathwork may be effective for improving stress and mental health. However, we urge caution and advocate for nuanced research approaches with low risk-of-bias study designs to avoid a miscalibration between hype and evidence.

[balfirevic]

> However, we urge caution and advocate for nuanced research approaches with low risk-of-bias study designs to avoid a miscalibration between hype and evidence.

It's interesting to think about the information conveyed by this sentence.

Would anyone seriously propose non-nuanced research approach with high risk of bias that easily confuses hype for evidence?

[esquivalience]

Yes, all the time. Every time anyone posts a comment here or reads an article to form a opinion, without instituting a blind study behind it, they are deciding to proceed without nuanced research. The point is that in doing so we are at risk of confusing hype for evidence.

As in the abstract here, often the signal comes just as much from the fact that something needs to be said at all - not just the content of what is said

[crazygringo]

No, I agree with the original commenter.

It's about reading the full discussion section to understand it in nuance, see the caveats etc.

It's not about a summary -- it's about skipping the intro that reviews the literature you already know, the method, all the tables of results, and jumping to the actual good stuff.

I frequently find myself scrolling to get to that part, overshooting, scrolling back...

[richforrester]

Also literally has a link to "conclusions" :)