Abstract
The author replies to the comments of Drs Blanchard and McGrady, urging that researchers reinvigorate their research efforts in complementary and alternative treatments for hypertension. In subsequent research there is a need to assess treatment adherence, to use more rigorous outcome measures, and to develop new outcome measures that assess impact and improvement in quality of life.
REFERENCES
Andrasik, F. (1994). Twenty-fiveyears of progress: Twenty-five more? Biofeedback and Self-Regulation, 19(4), 311–324.
Eisenberg, D. M., Davis, R. B., Ettner, S. L., Appel, S., Wilkey, S., Van Rompay, M., et al. (1998). Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA, 280(18), 1569–1575.
Kubicek, W. G., Kottke, F. J., Ramos, M. U., Msee, R. P.P., Msee, D. A. W., Labree, J. W., et al. (1974). The Minnesota impedance cardiograph-theory and application. Biomedical Engineering, 9(9), 410–416.
National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.(n.d.). General Information. Retrieved October 15, 2001, from http://nccam.nih.gov/an/general/
O'Rourke, M. F., & Gallagher, D. E. (1996). Pulse wave analysis. Journal of Hypertension, 14(Suppl. 5), S147–S157.
Yucha, C. B. (2001). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring: Measurement implications for research. Journal of Nursing Measurement, 9(1), 49–59.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Yucha, C.B. Final Remarks. Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback 27, 113–114 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014584807040
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014584807040