西西河

主题:【原创】虽远和十七勇士-中药治感冒无效的证据解剖 -- 大脚丫

共:💬223 🌺711 🌵16
全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖
家园 英文很差的我来试着翻译一下那一段吧

Main results

We found 17 studies involving 3212 patients. The methods of 15 studies were at high risk of bias. In only two studies was the risk of bias low. Trials used “positive drugs”, of which the efficacy was not known, as controls. Different Chinese herbal reparations were tested in nearly all trials. In only one trial was a Chinese herbal preparation tested twice. In seven trials, six herbal preparations were found to be more effective at enhancing recovery than the control preparations. In the other 10 studies, seven herbal preparations were not shown to be significantly different from the control. One study did not describe the difference between the intervention and control groups.

主要结论:我们发现了17个研究结果,涉及到3212个病人。其中有15个研究结果的结论存在着偏畸的风险性,只有两个研究的结论的偏激的风险性更小,实验使用了药效不明确的“positive drugs”作为对照组,所有的实验都测试了不同的中药方剂,只有一次实验当中同一种中药方剂被连续测试了两次,在七次测试中发现了有六种中药方剂在增强患者的康复能力方面比对照组更具有效力,其他的10次实验中的七种中药方剂没有显示出与对照组相比的显著差异(significantly different ),有一个实验没有显示出实验组和对照组的差异(difference)

----此文实际上是很严谨的,比方说显著差异(这个用概率语言大概是显效率达到了多少就是显著差异,显效率达到多少但是低于多少则仅仅是差异)

文章中说到了6种方剂是显效的,与对照组有显著差异

7种方剂仅仅只有差异而没有显著差异

1种方剂没有发现任何差异

全看分页树展 · 主题 跟帖


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

Copyright © cchere 西西河