- 程序有所改变。发帖如还有问题请报告
- 【征集】西西河的经济学，及清流措施，需要主动参与者，『稷下学宫』新认证方式，24年网站打算和努力目标
主题：【原创】如何看待Cochrane Reivews-- 送 -- 虽远必诛
家园 【原创】如何看待Cochrane Reivews-- 送 还是谈这篇Cochrane Reviews: Chinese medicinal herbs for the common cold
首先建议大家看：外链出处
对于一个系统回顾，比较重要的内容是：检索范围，对RCTs评估标准和最后的意见汇总。
先看看这篇文章的检索范围：Electronic searches
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
(CENTRAL) (TheCochrane Library 2008, issue 2) which contains
the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group’s Specialised
Register; MEDLINE (1966 to May 2008); EMBASE (1980 to
May 2008); AMED(1985 toMay 2008); the Chinese Biomedical
Database (CBMdisc) (1978 to May 2008); and China National
Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) (1994 to May 2008).
The MEDLINE search strategy is shown below. We combined
theMEDLINE search string with the highly sensitive search strategy
(Dickersin 1994). See Appendix 1 for the CENTRAL search
strategy. The search string was adapted for EMBASE, AMED, the
Chinese Biomedical Database and China National Knowledge Infrastructure
关键词的使用：
1 exp Common cold/
2 common cold.mp.
3 exp Rhinovirus/
4 rhinovirus$.mp.
5 (upper respiratory tract infection$ or URTI).mp.
6 (upper respiratory infection$ or URI).mp.
7 or/1-6
8 exp Medicine, Chinese Traditional/
9 exp Drugs, Chinese Herbal/
10 herbal medic$.mp.
11 medicinal herb$.mp.
12 chinese herb$.mp.
13 chinese medic$.mp.
14 or/8-13
15 7 and 14
可谓一网打尽，不存在选择上的bias。
回顾作者一共有六个，远远高于最低要求的两个独立回顾者。
Six review authors (WT, ZX, ZJ, XLX, QY, LG) performed the
searches and retrieved articles.
有明确的对RCTs的评价标准，
最后检索的结果
A total of 430 trials that claimed to be randomised were retrieved.We successfully contacted 365 trial authors by telephone.Of these
trials, 302 were excluded, either because the trial authors misunderstood
true random allocation or the trial reports were multiple
versions of same study (see the ’Characteristics of excluded studies’
table), of those, 67 were additional studies later excluded in this
updated version of review.
One hundred and nine are listed in the ’Studies awaiting classification’
section. One of these studies, for example, assessed an
intervention containing ’Yuxincao’, a drug which the State Food
and Drug Administration (SFDA) stopped production of, due to
unclear adverse events. Other trials are allocated to this section
as we could not locate the original trial authors to identify the
randomisation method.
Seventeen studies were identified as true RCTs and fulfilled our
inclusion criteria
因此这十七个RCTs是目前中药治疗感冒的最直接证据了。
然后就评价这十七个RCTs，简单明确。
待续。
家园 中药明细二 中药 拉丁 英文
广藿香：Guanghexiang Herba Pogostemonis Cablin Potchouli herb
防风：Fangfeng Radix Saposhnikoviae Divaricate Saposhnikovia root
羌活：Qianhu Radix Peucedani Whiteflower Hogfennel root/Common Hongfennel root
浮萍：Fuping Herba Spirodelae Common Ducksmeat herb
茯苓皮：Fulinpi Poria skin Indian Buead skin
金莲花：Jinlianhua Flos Trollii Chinese Globeflower flower
大青叶：Daqingye Folium Isatidis Indigowoad leaf
生石膏：Shenshigao Gypsum Fibrosum Gypsum
知母：Zhimu Rhizoma Anemarrhenae Common Anemarrhena rhizome
生地：Shendi Radix Rehmanniae Rehmannia root
玄参：Xuanshen Radix Scrophulariae Figwort root
苦杏仁：Kuxingren Semen Armeniacae Amarum Bitter Apricot Seed
郁金：Yujin Radix Curcumae Turmeric root-tuber
麻黄：Mahuang Herba Ephedrae Ephedra herbs
山豆根：Shandougen Radix Sophorae Tonkinensis Vietnamese Sophora root
薄荷：Bohe Herba Menthae Peppermint
冰片：Bingpian Borneolum Borneol
甘草：Gancao Radix Glycyrrhizae Liquoric root
石菖蒲：Shichangpu Rhizoma Acori Tatarinowii Grassleaf Sweelflag rhizome
穿心莲：Chuanxinlian Herba Andrographis Common Andrographis herb
哎呀！我去，竟然没有大名鼎鼎的生姜，为啥没有姜汤呢？
外链图片需谨慎，可能会被源头改为啥？要不要搞一个投票？
外链图片需谨慎，可能会被源头改家园 都用些什么中药？ 作为对重要的研究，大家一定想知道到底用过那些，是否您心目中的姜汤没有被选用。
看看明细表
中药 拉丁 英文
黄芩：Huangqin， Radix Scutellariae， Baical Skullcap root
连翘：Lianqiao Fructus Forsythiae， Weeping Forsythia capsule
虎杖：Huzhang Rhizoma Polygoni Cuspidati Giant Knotweed rhizome
山芝麻：Shanzhima Radix Helicteris Narrowleaf Screwtree root
金银花：Jinyinhua Flos Lonicerae Honeysuckle flower
青蒿： Qinhao Herba Artemisiae SweetWormwood herb
柴胡： Chaihu Radix Bupleuri Chinese Thorowax root /Red Thorowax root
细辛：Xixin Herba Asari Manchurian Wildginger
葛根：Gegen Radix Puerariae Kudzuvine root
黄连：Huanglian Rhizoma Coptidis Colden thread
炙甘草：Zhigancao Radix Glycyrrhizae Liquorice root
杭菊花：Hangjuhua Flos Chrysanthemi Chrysanthemun flower
苦杏仁：Kuxinren Semen Armeniacae Amarum Apricot kernel
Shanzha Fructus Crataegi Hawthorn fruit
陈皮：Chenpi Pericarpium Citri Reticulatae Dried Tangerine peel
牛黄：Niuhuang Calculus Bovis Bezoar
水牛角：Shuiniujiao Cornu Bubali Buffalo horn
珍珠母：Zhenzhumu Concha Margaritifera Usta Nacre
栀子：Zhizi Fructus Gardeniae Cape Jasmine fruit
板蓝根：Banlangen Radix Isatidis Isatis root
石膏：Shigao Gypsum Fibrosum Gypsum
桑叶：Sangye Folium Mori Mulberry leaf
野菊花：Yejuhua Flos Chrysanthemi Indici Wild Chrysanthemum
鱼腥草：Yuxingcao Herba Houttuyniae Heartleaf Houttuynia Herb
薄荷油：Boheyou Herba Menthae oil Peppermint oil
紫苏叶：isuye Folium Perillae Perilla leaf
羌活：Qianghuo Rhizoma Notopterygii Incised Notopterygium rhizome/Forbes Notopterygium rhizome
荆芥：Jinjie Herba Schizonepetae Fineleaf Schizonepeta herb
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 aretrospective 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 patientswere 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 allocationmethod 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 ofallocation 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 verifythe 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 thepatients 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 thepatients 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 separatedfor 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 methodwas 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 randomisationmethod 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 thechildren 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？
