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.
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?
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
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...