The full text is an easy read. No biology. Main statistics are bar charts and percentages. Short. However, just because it's easy to read, doesn't mean it's not frustrating to read such an unbalanced piece ... However, the reviewer, Peter White (see page 3), might not have been frustrated with the approach! (and maybe he "helped", as reviewers often give input) Free full text: http://shortreports.rsmjournals.com/content/2/5/42.full ETA: "alternative treatments" do not necessarily mean complementary therapy. It's everything that's not CBT/GET (the "evidence-based" treatments) or Lightning Process. Abstracts tend to be more difficult to read than the full text of articles where everything is explained step by step in a less dense manner.