主题：【原创】如何看待Cochrane Reivews-- 送 -- 虽远必诛

共:💬11 🌺49

生活百通

全看分页树展 · 主题跟帖

复【原创】如何看待Cochrane Reivews-- 送

家园

2 被枪毙的试验

当您看到430个试验，仅仅有17个入选，是不是把孩子同脏水一同泼掉了？

不是因为要回国的是RCTs，因此如果不是RCTs就不能入选，因此在个人的体会，神迹，各种大师的报道，对不起，别拿出来。

看看被枪毙的一些试验您就知道了。

Bao 2000a Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephoned the original author and learned that this was actually a

retrospective paper and a summary of the author’s clinical experience

用姓时间A，B，C是最标准的APA格式，当然不要指望棒槌知道什么是APA。

感慨一下，连APA格式都不知道，也出来评估医学文献，无语。没吃过猪肉，还没看见过猪跑？

这个文献被否定的原因是，声称是RCT但是实际上是作者个人的医学临床经验回顾。

看来普及基础知识太重要的，连什么是RCT都不知道，这个叫病案报道，case report。

Bao 2001 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’.We telephone interviewed the original author and learned that patients

were allocated by author

这个是因为患者没有被随机分组，是作者主观分组的，明显的bias。

Bao 2003 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephoned the original author and learned that the allocation

method was according to the order the patients came to the hospital

这个是因为患者被方便分组，convenience sample，就是第一个看病是治疗组，第二个是治疗组，以此类推，这个不是随机分组。

Cao 2003 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephoned the original author and learned that the method of

allocation was not randomised

原因：非随机分组，但是声称是随机。

Chen 1994 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. The original author refused our telephone interview

原因：作者拒绝电话访问！！！！！

这个可能您认为比较怨望，但是这是EBM的基本规则，没有被证明的就是不存在。

您可以说这个试验本身确实RCT，但是因为作者忙，脾气不好，没有给钱，等等，就明珠暗投了。

可惜，这些辩解没有用，即便是接受电话访问，回顾者还要看原始数据资料，不是，口说就可以的。

别做梦，别相信任何人。

Chen 2001 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and the answer was “no,

I don’t know how to allocate the patients”. Thus, this study was considered a non-RCT

这个比较搞，连如何分组都不懂，还声称是RCT。

Chen 2004c Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author, but he could not verify

the randomisation method

无法提供具体分组细节，光声称是RCT，不被承认。

Chen 2007b Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and learned that the

patients were allocated based on their birth date

按照患者生日分组，也是方便样本不是随机分组。

Chen 2008 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and learned that the

patients were allocated based on their bed number

患者床位号码分组，还是方便样本，不是随机分组。

Cheng 1997 Not only common cold, but 23 patients with acute laryngotracheitis were included. The data could not be separated

for analysis[/QUOTE

包括23个喉支气管炎，在后期的分析中没有单独分析。这个试验的患者选择有问题，要测试的患者不是要回顾的人群。

[QUOTE]Dai 1997 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and the randomisation

was stated to be “not performed exactly according to the rule”

随机分组，但是执行的不严格。不是RCT

Diao 2003 A version of Jiang 2003a

一稿多投，恶习。

Gao 2000 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’.We telephone interviewed the original author and the allocation method

was described as “randomly select patients as control”

随机选择患者做对照，但是不是全部患者。

Hou 2001a Combined Yiqin capsule with antibiotics did not match our inclusion criteria

同时使用中西药，无法判断是否中药有效。

Li 1999b Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and the randomisation

method an inadequate method, “Chouqian”

抽签，不是自然随机分组。

Pan 2001a Multiple versions of included study Pan 2000

这家伙一稿投了六次。

Tang 2003 Described as a ’randomised controlled trial’. We telephone interviewed the original author and learned that the

children were allocated according to their age.

年龄分组，不是随机分组。

以上仅仅是典型的例子，每一个都有很多的不同版本。

这个Cochrane Reviews是建立在回顾所有目前有效的文献基础上的，尽量的消灭一切的bias。

竟然有人说这回顾，充满的bias，别给学统计的人丢脸，好不好？

全看分页树展 · 主题跟帖

相关回复上下关系8
- - 🙂中药明细二 5 虽远必诛字1826 2009-12-30 14:19:55
    🙂中医专家说了可爱的中国字165 2009-12-30 18:17:19
  - 🙂都用些什么中药？ 5 虽远必诛字2056 2009-12-30 14:02:39
  - 🙂2 被枪毙的试验
    🙂最近光看您给大家扫盲了 1 麦片字41 2009-12-30 12:28:41
    🙂谢谢关心，还在忙手续。 1 虽远必诛字215 2009-12-30 12:32:39
    🙂呵呵大夫辛苦啦麦片字0 2009-12-30 16:43:16
    🙂大夫对医学普及做了不少工作，佩服！ chalet 字0 2009-12-30 00:58:08

有趣有益，互惠互利；开阔视野，博采众长。
虚拟的网络，真实的人。天南地北客，相逢皆朋友

版面群落趣味社区帮助常见问题网站简介基本河规隐私条款使用条款广告说明