{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026515151515151516, 'fraction_numerical': 0.030303030303030304, 'mean_word_length': 4.510416666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Letter re: Article by Palm J et al Int J Clin Pract. 2018 Oct 17; 72:e13272

In regard to the article by Palm. J et.al. [1], we would like to provide an alternative viewpoint to some of the discussion points raised. The article indicates that the strength of the study design lies within the selection of complete symptom resolution after 72 hours as the primary endpoint. It is argued that this is more clinically meaningful than traditionally studied endpoints, which in comparison measure the immediateness of symptom relief.