美国国立卫生研究院避孕套报告:玻璃杯90%是满的。

W. Cates
{"title":"美国国立卫生研究院避孕套报告:玻璃杯90%是满的。","authors":"W. Cates","doi":"10.2307/2673787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"for the workshop. In addition, a panel of 28 people was chosen from a spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies to help craft the report. The workshop itself was attended by 180 interested individuals. The ground rules for the report were made clear from the outset. The panel examined only those peer-reviewed, published articles included in the presentations at the workshop. This limitation ensured that the independent scientific evaluation that occurs prior to publication was inherent in all of the data considered. While this approach allowed a certain quality control, it meant that several bodies of data (e.g., those available but unpublished, or those published but deemed unacceptable by the speakers) were not included in the full set of information considered by the panel. Nonetheless, an impressive array of 138 peer-reviewed articles that had been published by the time of the workshop were the basis for the NIH report. The report was limited to evaluating the effectiveness of male latex condoms used during penile-vaginal intercourse. It examined evidence on eight STIs—HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, chancroid, trichomoniasis, genital herpes and genital human papillomavirus. The evaluation methodology was extensive, considering both the efficacy (ideal use) and the effectiveness (typical use) of the condom. The quality of the study design, the ascertainment of exposure (e.g., consistent condom use), the laboratory measures of outcome (e.g., STIs) and the adequacy of statistical analytic approaches were examined.","PeriodicalId":75844,"journal":{"name":"Family planning perspectives","volume":"33 5 1","pages":"231-3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/2673787","citationCount":"91","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The NIH condom report: the glass is 90% full.\",\"authors\":\"W. Cates\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/2673787\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"for the workshop. In addition, a panel of 28 people was chosen from a spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies to help craft the report. The workshop itself was attended by 180 interested individuals. The ground rules for the report were made clear from the outset. The panel examined only those peer-reviewed, published articles included in the presentations at the workshop. This limitation ensured that the independent scientific evaluation that occurs prior to publication was inherent in all of the data considered. While this approach allowed a certain quality control, it meant that several bodies of data (e.g., those available but unpublished, or those published but deemed unacceptable by the speakers) were not included in the full set of information considered by the panel. Nonetheless, an impressive array of 138 peer-reviewed articles that had been published by the time of the workshop were the basis for the NIH report. The report was limited to evaluating the effectiveness of male latex condoms used during penile-vaginal intercourse. It examined evidence on eight STIs—HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, chancroid, trichomoniasis, genital herpes and genital human papillomavirus. The evaluation methodology was extensive, considering both the efficacy (ideal use) and the effectiveness (typical use) of the condom. The quality of the study design, the ascertainment of exposure (e.g., consistent condom use), the laboratory measures of outcome (e.g., STIs) and the adequacy of statistical analytic approaches were examined.\",\"PeriodicalId\":75844,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family planning perspectives\",\"volume\":\"33 5 1\",\"pages\":\"231-3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/2673787\",\"citationCount\":\"91\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family planning perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/2673787\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family planning perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/2673787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 91

摘要

为研讨会准备的。此外,还从不同的背景和意识形态中挑选了一个28人的小组来帮助撰写报告。讲习班本身有180名感兴趣的个人参加。这份报告的基本原则从一开始就很明确。该小组只审查了那些同行评议的、发表在研讨会报告中的文章。这一限制确保了在发表之前进行的独立科学评估是所有被考虑的数据所固有的。虽然这种办法可以进行一定的质量控制,但这意味着若干数据(例如,已有但未发表的数据,或已发表但发言者认为不可接受的数据)没有包括在小组审议的整套资料中。尽管如此,在研讨会召开之前,已经发表的138篇同行评议文章构成了NIH报告的基础。该报告仅限于评估在阴茎-阴道性交中使用的男性乳胶避孕套的有效性。它审查了8种性传播疾病的证据——艾滋病毒、淋病、衣原体、梅毒、软下疳、滴虫病、生殖器疱疹和生殖器人类乳头瘤病毒。评估方法是广泛的,考虑了避孕套的功效(理想使用)和有效性(典型使用)。对研究设计的质量、暴露的确定(如一贯使用避孕套)、结果的实验室测量(如性传播感染)和统计分析方法的充分性进行了检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The NIH condom report: the glass is 90% full.
for the workshop. In addition, a panel of 28 people was chosen from a spectrum of backgrounds and ideologies to help craft the report. The workshop itself was attended by 180 interested individuals. The ground rules for the report were made clear from the outset. The panel examined only those peer-reviewed, published articles included in the presentations at the workshop. This limitation ensured that the independent scientific evaluation that occurs prior to publication was inherent in all of the data considered. While this approach allowed a certain quality control, it meant that several bodies of data (e.g., those available but unpublished, or those published but deemed unacceptable by the speakers) were not included in the full set of information considered by the panel. Nonetheless, an impressive array of 138 peer-reviewed articles that had been published by the time of the workshop were the basis for the NIH report. The report was limited to evaluating the effectiveness of male latex condoms used during penile-vaginal intercourse. It examined evidence on eight STIs—HIV, gonorrhea, chlamydia, syphilis, chancroid, trichomoniasis, genital herpes and genital human papillomavirus. The evaluation methodology was extensive, considering both the efficacy (ideal use) and the effectiveness (typical use) of the condom. The quality of the study design, the ascertainment of exposure (e.g., consistent condom use), the laboratory measures of outcome (e.g., STIs) and the adequacy of statistical analytic approaches were examined.
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