Take it from an academic like me that peer review in just over a month is rare and a sign of low-quality editorial work at the journal (the exceptions would be the most open, progressive journals like PCI and similar).
The formatting/style and peer review history alone are enough for me to doubt this. Of course, the other users' points about study design and lack of transparency make it even harder to trust the claims.
The formatting/style and peer review history alone are enough for me to doubt this. Of course, the other users' points about study design and lack of transparency make it even harder to trust the claims.