多重化学敏感性是一种习得反应吗?对挑衅研究的批判性评价

E. Goudsmit, S. Howes
{"title":"多重化学敏感性是一种习得反应吗?对挑衅研究的批判性评价","authors":"E. Goudsmit, S. Howes","doi":"10.1080/13590840802443133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. A systematic review of provocation studies concluded that while persons with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) react to chemical challenges, these responses occur more often when they can discern differences between active and sham substances. The authors of the review interpreted these findings as evidence that the symptoms may not be specific to the chemical but related to expectations and prior beliefs. Given the complexity of the subject matter, the studies were re‐examined using additional criteria.Results: Our analysis revealed a number of methodological weaknesses which do not appear to have been given due consideration by the authors when interpreting the findings.Conclusions. In light of these shortcomings, we believe that their conclusions may have over‐stated the role of psychological factors in the aetiology of MCS.","PeriodicalId":88013,"journal":{"name":"Journal of nutritional & environmental medicine","volume":"17 1","pages":"195-211"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13590840802443133","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is multiple chemical sensitivity a learned response? A critical evaluation of provocation studies\",\"authors\":\"E. Goudsmit, S. Howes\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13590840802443133\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background. A systematic review of provocation studies concluded that while persons with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) react to chemical challenges, these responses occur more often when they can discern differences between active and sham substances. The authors of the review interpreted these findings as evidence that the symptoms may not be specific to the chemical but related to expectations and prior beliefs. Given the complexity of the subject matter, the studies were re‐examined using additional criteria.Results: Our analysis revealed a number of methodological weaknesses which do not appear to have been given due consideration by the authors when interpreting the findings.Conclusions. In light of these shortcomings, we believe that their conclusions may have over‐stated the role of psychological factors in the aetiology of MCS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":88013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of nutritional & environmental medicine\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"195-211\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/13590840802443133\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of nutritional & environmental medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13590840802443133\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of nutritional & environmental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13590840802443133","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景。对刺激研究的系统回顾得出结论,虽然具有多种化学敏感性(MCS)的人对化学挑战有反应,但当他们能够辨别活性物质和假物质之间的差异时,这些反应更经常发生。该综述的作者将这些发现解释为证据,表明这些症状可能不是特定于化学物质,而是与预期和先前的信念有关。考虑到主题的复杂性,研究使用额外的标准重新检查。结果:我们的分析揭示了一些方法学上的弱点,这些弱点在解释研究结果时似乎没有得到作者应有的考虑。鉴于这些缺点,我们认为他们的结论可能夸大了心理因素在MCS病因学中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Is multiple chemical sensitivity a learned response? A critical evaluation of provocation studies
Background. A systematic review of provocation studies concluded that while persons with multiple chemical sensitivities (MCS) react to chemical challenges, these responses occur more often when they can discern differences between active and sham substances. The authors of the review interpreted these findings as evidence that the symptoms may not be specific to the chemical but related to expectations and prior beliefs. Given the complexity of the subject matter, the studies were re‐examined using additional criteria.Results: Our analysis revealed a number of methodological weaknesses which do not appear to have been given due consideration by the authors when interpreting the findings.Conclusions. In light of these shortcomings, we believe that their conclusions may have over‐stated the role of psychological factors in the aetiology of MCS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信