针灸的系统评价——有问题吗?

Stephen Birch
{"title":"针灸的系统评价——有问题吗?","authors":"Stephen Birch","doi":"10.1054/caom.2001.0073","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In recent years, many systematic reviews of the clinical efficacy of acupuncture have been conducted. Almost every review found major problems with the quality of the clinical trials, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions about efficacy. The present paper explores a number of important issues involved in the design and conduct of systematic reviews of acupuncture. Examples are pointed out of mistakes in inclusion-exclusion criteria and problems with judgements about adequacy of test treatment in some reviews. More importantly, problems are identified with the criteria by which study quality is scored, especially with the Jadad summary scale, that appear to bias against finding acupuncture to be effective. Examples are also identified where the conclusions of systematic reviews appear to have been misstated by others summarizing findings of those reviews, thereby undermining the conclusions of those broader reviews. These findings suggest that the methodologies of systematic reviews of acupuncture need to be improved and that many systematic reviews need to be redone using improved methods.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100265,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine","volume":"2 1","pages":"Pages 17-22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/caom.2001.0073","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic reviews of acupuncture — are there problems with these?\",\"authors\":\"Stephen Birch\",\"doi\":\"10.1054/caom.2001.0073\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>In recent years, many systematic reviews of the clinical efficacy of acupuncture have been conducted. Almost every review found major problems with the quality of the clinical trials, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions about efficacy. The present paper explores a number of important issues involved in the design and conduct of systematic reviews of acupuncture. Examples are pointed out of mistakes in inclusion-exclusion criteria and problems with judgements about adequacy of test treatment in some reviews. More importantly, problems are identified with the criteria by which study quality is scored, especially with the Jadad summary scale, that appear to bias against finding acupuncture to be effective. Examples are also identified where the conclusions of systematic reviews appear to have been misstated by others summarizing findings of those reviews, thereby undermining the conclusions of those broader reviews. These findings suggest that the methodologies of systematic reviews of acupuncture need to be improved and that many systematic reviews need to be redone using improved methods.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100265,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"Pages 17-22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1054/caom.2001.0073\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1461144901900738\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1461144901900738","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30

摘要

近年来,对针灸的临床疗效进行了许多系统的评价。几乎每一篇综述都发现了临床试验质量的主要问题,这使得很难得出关于疗效的明确结论。本文探讨了针灸系统评价的设计和实施中涉及的一些重要问题。举例指出了一些综述在纳入-排除标准上的错误,以及对试验处理是否充分的判断存在问题。更重要的是,研究质量评分标准存在问题,尤其是Jadad总结量表,这似乎不利于发现针灸是有效的。还指出了一些例子,其中系统评价的结论似乎被其他人在总结这些评价的发现时错误陈述,从而破坏了那些更广泛的评价的结论。这些发现表明,针灸系统评价的方法需要改进,许多系统评价需要使用改进的方法进行重做。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic reviews of acupuncture — are there problems with these?

In recent years, many systematic reviews of the clinical efficacy of acupuncture have been conducted. Almost every review found major problems with the quality of the clinical trials, making it difficult to draw clear conclusions about efficacy. The present paper explores a number of important issues involved in the design and conduct of systematic reviews of acupuncture. Examples are pointed out of mistakes in inclusion-exclusion criteria and problems with judgements about adequacy of test treatment in some reviews. More importantly, problems are identified with the criteria by which study quality is scored, especially with the Jadad summary scale, that appear to bias against finding acupuncture to be effective. Examples are also identified where the conclusions of systematic reviews appear to have been misstated by others summarizing findings of those reviews, thereby undermining the conclusions of those broader reviews. These findings suggest that the methodologies of systematic reviews of acupuncture need to be improved and that many systematic reviews need to be redone using improved methods.

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