1 Citation   Views   Downloads

Evaluation of the socially evaluated cold-pressor group test (SECPT-G) in the general population

View preprint
126 days ago
Evaluation of the socially evaluated cold-pressor group test (SECPT-G) in the general population https://t.co/89cKsJbfEo https://t.co/w5ZjaCS6f0
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

A peer-reviewed article of this Preprint also exists.

View peer-reviewed version

Supplemental Information

Dataset that was used for statistical analysis

DOI: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27658v2/supp-1

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Linda Becker conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, analyzed the data, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Ursula Schade conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, approved the final draft.

Nicolas Rohleder contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, approved the final draft.

Human Ethics

The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body and any reference numbers):

The study was approved by the local ethics committee of the Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The data is provided in the supplementary file 1.

Funding

Linda Becker was supported by the Bavarian Equal Opportunities Sponsorship – Förderung von Frauen in Forschung und Lehre (FFL) – Promoting Equal Opportunities for Women in Research and Teaching. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies