{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027210884353741496, 'fraction_numerical': 0.026239067055393587, 'mean_word_length': 5.319018404907975, '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}}
Is the research sound?

Publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal does not guarantee that the evidence is valid, sincere efforts of reviewers and editors notwithstanding. For the sake of our patients, clinicians must consider strengths and weaknesses of research literature, rejecting some evidence and embracing other relevant research with adequate protections against key validity threats. Although it's almost impossible to find published research without some flaw or limitation, the savvy reader will be able to distinguish the fatal flaws from lesser problems. Even when an excellent article is found, we must realize that clinical research is cumulative; a single article will rarely provide a definitive answer about a clinical topic. Academicians have an obligation to perform this same evidence-sorting and interpretive process, and to make the process transparent while teaching, so that students can learn to do it for themselves. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2005; 35(5):271–272. doi:10.2519/jospt.2005.0105