主题：【原创】建议中粉多学习现代科研方法 -- 虽远必诛
你翻译的东西，看得我差点疯掉。
就说结论部分吧，作者说了什么呢？我这里就不标引用了，一句一句的翻译
Authors’ conclusions
作者总结
Some herbal medicines show hypoglycaemic effect sin type 2 diabetes.
某些中药（字面翻译是草本药物）对于2型糖尿病有降低血糖（字面是“低血糖症效应”）的效果。
However, these findings should be carefully interpreted due to
the low methodological quality, small sample size, and limited number of trials.
但是，由于低下的方法学质量，过小的样品数，以及受限于实验的数量，这些结果需要谨慎的进行诠释。
In the light of some positive findings, some herbal
medicines deserve further examination in high-quality trials.
根据某些有积极效果的发现，某些中药值得在高质量的实验中进行进一步的检验。
===========================================================
感情人家还是不认可呀！
说明什么？即便是这些RCT也是非常不严谨，更遑提出个人的所谓经验，经历了。
说实话，我真的不知道你怎么得出“人家不认可”这个结论的。
首先不知道你说的认可是什么意思，其次，你可能看到的是负面的东西比如低质量的实验设计，过小的样本数量等等，但是我看到的就两句，一、某些中药对于二型糖尿病有降低血糖的效果，二 这些效果需要进行进一步的高水平实验检验予以确认。
作为一个科研工作者，看到这个结论应该想到的是：这个领域还有进一步拓展的空间，我应该改进现有的研究来得到更好的结果。只有这样，这个领域才有进步的可能。
而现在某些科研工作者看到的是：这个东西不能进入临床，掐死算了。
原文讲的意思很清楚。
1，没有肯定的证据。
也就是说目前没有理由支持用中药治疗二型糖尿病。
没有证据证明有效，结论就是无效。直到有了明确的证据才可以说有效。
2，某些中药显示了降糖作用，但是验证方法不好，可能真有效，可能没有效。所谓的假阳性。
目前只能存疑，等待好的验证方法。
在没有好的验证方法支持之前，不能生成有效。
3，目前的试验水平比较低，样本少，这既是指出目前的问题，也是指明未来的研究方向。
注意：However, these findings should be carefully interpreted
这已经是非常清楚的表明了作者不支持这些findings.
最后在P L A I N L A N G U A G E S U M M A R Y 讲的就是非常直白了。当然中粉看不懂学术总结，就看给出的大白话就可以了。
Chinese herbal medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus
We are still waiting for firm evidence on Chinese herbal medicines for treatment of non-insulin-dependent diabetes. Although the use of herbal medicines for treatment of diabetes has a long history especially in the East, current evidence cannot warrant to support the
routine use in clinical practice. This systematic review evaluates the effects of various herbal preparations (including single herbs or mixtures of different herbs) for treating people with type 2 diabetes. The review shows that some herbal medicines lower blood sugar and relieving symptoms in patients with diabetes. However, the methodological quality of the clinical trials evaluating these herbs is generally poor. The analyses also indicate that trials with positive findings are more likely to be associated with exaggerated effects.
However, the trials did not report significant adverse effects. In conclusion, herbal medicines should not be recommended for routine use in diabetic patients of type 2 diabetes until we get scientifically sound trials. Testing the herbs in larger, well-designed trials is needed in order to establish the necessary evidence for their use.
几次出现否定性描述，有的甚至是直接表明怀疑实验的真实性。
如果这样清楚的说明，中粉还能理解为：这个系统回顾不是否定性，
只能说水平低的可以到地平线以下了。
如果作为中间派的您还是有疑问，可以看Cochrane review 是如何做出正性的结论：
Main results
Eight randomised controlled trials were identified. A total 976 men were allocated to receive a PDE-5 inhibitor and 741 were randomised to the control groups. Overall, 80% of the participants suffered from type 2 diabetes mellitus. The weighted mean difference (WMD) for the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF) questions 3 and 4 (frequency of penetration during and maintaining erection to completion of intercourse) was 0.9 (95% CI 0.8 to 1.1) and 1.1 (95% CI 1.0 to 1.2) at the end of the study period, in favour of the intervention group. The WMD for the IIEF erectile dysfunction domain at the end of the study period was 6.6 (95% CI 5.2 to 7.9) in favour of the PDE-5 inhibitors arm. The relative risk (RR) for answering "yes" to a global efficacy question ( "did the treatment improve your erections?") was 3.8 (CI 95% 3.1 to 4.5) in the PDE-5 inhibitors compared with the control arm. The WMD between the percentage of successful attempts in the PDE-5 inhibitors and in the control arm was 26.7 (95% CI 23.1 to 30.3). Mortality was not reported in any of the included trials. Adverse cardiovascular effects were reported in one study. Headache was the most frequent adverse event reported, flushing was the second most common event, with upper respiratory tract complaints and flu like syndromes, dyspepsia, myalgia, abnormal vision and back pain also reported in a descending order of frequency. The overall risk ratio for developing any adverse reaction was 4.8 (CI 95% 3.74 to 6.16) in the PDE-5 inhibitors arm as compared to the control.
Authors' conclusions
Sufficient evidence exists that PDE-5 inhibitors form a care that improves erectile dysfunction in diabetic men.
Sufficient evidence exists that PDE-5 inhibitors form a care that improves erectile dysfunction in diabetic men.
科学上的事情，要实事求是，否定就是否定，支持就是支持。
最基本的规矩都不懂就不要奢谈
- 相关回复 上下关系8
🙂【原创】建议中粉多学习现代科研方法
🙂好吧，被骂成中粉了 4 事儿爸 字655 2010-06-20 00:10:52
🙂不推荐临床使用和无效是两个概念。 秦关 字171 2010-06-19 23:48:54
🙂其实这就是为什么我说 事儿爸 字149 2010-06-20 00:15:28
🙂一个开小诊所的，也奢谈科研。 雪峰神剑 字48 2010-06-19 22:45:29
🙂好威风，好煞气啊，赞一个 乌柏 字0 2010-06-20 07:03:57
🙂科研是谁的权利？ chalet 字50 2010-06-20 06:58:32
🙂欧美的每一个医生都有国内公证员的权利和信誉。 南云北望 字43 2010-06-20 06:40:34